Home - List All Discussions

Controlling the Debate

Words mean what they mean.

by: cali1981

There has been so much said lately about "emotional appeals" and "emotionally charged words" and "dishonest debating" that it is time to set the record straight.

When someone tells someone else that they can't use certain words, they are trying to control the debate to suit their purposes. They are trying to distance themselves from the most important part of their humanity and their personality: their emotions and values. There is nothing wrong with emotion, and there is no rule that says that inherently emotional issues must be distanced from emotion before they can be discussed.

All issues involving people (and many other issues as well) have the potential to elicit emotion. They should be treated as such. I think that anyone who cares about social justice in any way realizes this on some level. They care about it because they feel for their fellow human beings. When advocating for someone's right to welfare or a decent living wage or health benefits or affirmative action, don't you use words like "family," "person," "deserve," "hurt," "humane," and things like that? All of those words could potentially elicit sympathy for people in that plight, and thus, for the cause as well. Yet, no opponent of labor unions or affirmative action stands up and shrieks, "Don't call them people! Don't use the word family! Those are emotional pleas! You need to get in the habit of using words like citizen and dependents before we can have a REAL - rather than emotional - debate about this issue!"

Few people say things like that. Know why? Because even opponents of issues like that have the decency to realize that dehumanizing people by definition is a cheap way to pretend that their problems don't matter. EVEN OPPONENTS of such things can recognize that these people are people and that their problems are real. So when these things are debated, they are debated in honest terms that respect the people for who they are and for what is happening to them. To use euphemistic terms would be DISHONEST and would remove the humanity from the debate. When you remove the humanity from an issue that involves humans, the issue becomes meaningless, and there is no reason to discuss it in the first place.

The same dynamic should apply to defenders of abortion. There should be no reason why you cannot uphold your position without using euphemistic terms. There is every reason to give every person involved in the abortion issue the respect of recognizing them for who and what they are. We don't shriek about your using the word "woman" (maybe instead you should use "female homo sapiens" or whatever the technical scientific phrase would be, to distance yourself from the emotional connotations of saying "woman"!!!), so you shouldn't be shrieking about our use of "child" to refer to the unborn. "Child" and "woman" are both absolutely correct and honest ways to refer to the people involved in an abortion situation. The emotional connotations of both are not only natural (i.e.; unplanned/unintended), but completely necessary for the abortion debate to have any meaning for either side.

reply from: yoda

"He who controls the terms, controls the debate". And the irony of it all is that the effort to control this debate evidences a very strong emotional desire to protect the act of baby-killing.

A totally candid statement for that effort would be "Yes, I want to make it socially acceptable for women to kill their unborn babies, and I'd like to achieve that by getting folks to quit using the traditional terms for unborn babies and substitute medical/scientific terms instead. Why, I'm sure no one will get all teary eyed over the death of an embryo or a fetus."

reply from: Sigma

I have not said one may not use the term "child" or "baby", I am pointing out that they are used to evoke sympathy for your cause. Yet I find myself vis-a-vis those who try to control the terms, while accusing me of the same.

"baby-killing" indeed.

This does seem to be the reason pro-life people, on this board at least, insist on using "child" and "baby".

reply from: Sigma

I was asked, I gave my opinion.

reply from: Sigma

You and I had ended our discussion. Tam asked me: So Sigma, you are arguing that the word "child" is an emotionally-charged word?

reply from: yoda

Yes, INDEED! NOW you are getting it!

Abortion KILLS BABIES............... so it is an act of BABY KILLING!

I'm so glad you understand that now!

reply from: JohnKWalker

While it is certainly true that whichever side controls the terms and general parameters of any social debate tends to win, the nearly 40 years of America's abortion debate seems to largely contradict this rule, in the sense that regardless whether "baby," "child," "fetus," "zygote," or some other obscure medical term is applied to the so-called "product of conception," very few people (the only exception I would concede are very young girls with troubled pregnancies) actually involved in legal abortion are unaware that they are committing a grave act of killing, whether legally sanctioned or not. (I was perversely impressed with an unintentionally candid remark in Kate Michelman's autobiography referring to the result of abortion being "fetal demise.") It is a fatal error for the pro-life side to understimate our opponents in this regard. The belief in legal abortion is fundamentally a selfish one, reflecting humanity's capacity for moral self-rationalization over any destructive act, not an ignorant one -- which is why I hold the ludicrously self-important "greatest generation" in considerable contempt for its support of pro-abortion politicians, in return for unearned freebies.

When the shock of the success of the pro-abortion movement (beginning in Colorado in 1967, culminating with Roe v. Wade in January 1973) hit people of good will, they very understandably appealed to the presumed common decency of their fellow Americans, and the first decade or so of the organized national pro-life movement was based on the notion that if "people are given the truth about the violent nature of abortion, they will reject it." (I certainly would have approved of this approach myself.) The culmination of this attempt was the release of "The Silent Scream" in 1984, upon which no one on the abortion rights side could credibly maintain its deliberately misleading claims. So they (especially the aforementioned Kate Michelman) very cleverly shifted the debate to the libertarian question of "Who Decides?" (Please read BEARING RIGHT by William Saletan for an in-depth account of this successful strategy.) With abortion-as-birth-control established for nearly a generation by then, despite overwhelming "conservative" political success during this period (with some sleazy scoundrels exploiting naive pro-life organizations, without having to actually deliver much in return for this political support), this "freedom" argument has held up to this day.

Unfortunately, I personally have found no evidence whatsoever that the leadership of the pro-life movement has developed any of the necessary political sophistication to avoid continually being outsmarted, along with being vastly outspent (given their inherent financial advantages), by the other side. (The grassroots activists actually seem better attuned to reality, as PBS Frontline's recent "The Last Abortion Clinic" shows, but this yeoman work will never actually result in the "non-person" legal status of pre-birth children ever being changed.)

reply from: yoda

Besides the "very young girls", I submit that there are millions more "not so young girls" who seek some rationalization for doing the dirty deed they already want to do, and cling desperately to the lies of the proaborts and their stone-cold language. When a person is seeking to be decieved for their own selfish purposes, it is surprisingly easy to decieve them. Thus the startling revelation of Dr. Bernard Nathanson that the idiotic slogans ("prochoice", "reproductive rights", etc.) he and another colleague coined caught on like wildfire with a segment of society that was desperate to be decieved.

So yes, I think it is a part of our struggle to constantly remind people of the truth by the use of plain everyday words rather than the euphemisms and technical jargon of the proaborts.

reply from: JohnKWalker

Besides the "very young girls", I submit that there are millions more "not so young girls" who seek some rationalization for doing the dirty deed they already want to do, and cling desperately to the lies of the proaborts and their stone-cold language. When a person is seeking to be decieved for their own selfish purposes, it is surprisingly easy to decieve them. Thus the startling revelation of Dr. Bernard Nathanson that the idiotic slogans ("prochoice", "reproductive rights", etc.) he and another colleague coined caught on like wildfire with a segment of society that was desperate to be decieved.

So yes, I think it is a part of our struggle to constantly remind people of the truth by the use of plain everyday words rather than the euphemisms and technical jargon of the proaborts.

Yodavater:

Yes, agree completely we do (couldn't resist...) on this point as to our human capacity for rationalization. My point is that many young teenagers with unplanned pregnancies actually ARE ignorant of the grave moral implications of aborting their children, as opposed to the adults (abortionists and those seeking birth-control abortions for themselves or their wives/girlfriends) who are morally deluding themselves with euphemisms -- often only temporarily. This is why the moral enlightenment of such people as Dr. Nathanson (who aborted his own children!), Olivia Gans, Carol Everett (everyone, please read her autobiography), etc. is so impressive, in that they have been courageous enough to face such a horrifying reality and then dedicate themselves to positively contributing to life.

BTW, I have a technical question about this website, if anyone out there knows: Is there anywhere to make long essay-type posts for review/critique? The need for genuine reconciliation of the sort of human conflict over abortion discussed here led me to write up something on this topic last year, and I would like to get others' feedback on my reasoning, but it is too detailed (circa. 4000 words) to hog thread space here (and would probably bore most people). Let me know if there is any facility for doing this, or alternatively I could individually e-mail it.

reply from: yoda

John, there are various places on the web that offer free storage space which you can link to. I've never used any of them other than my aol space, but I've heard about them. Try googling various appropriate phrases and see what you get.

reply from: Tam

YES!!! I keep saying this, too, and people say "abortion will always exist" -- well, we'll see, won't we.

reply from: Tam

You and I had ended our discussion. Tam asked me: So Sigma, you are arguing that the word "child" is an emotionally-charged word?

Yup, and as I recall, you got really backed into a corner about why you don't like others to use it. Finally had to admit that it is just because you don't like to think about the fact that a fetus is a child, an embryo is a child, etc. As for no one caring about a fetus or a zygote or a fertilized egg--hello??? Not sure who you've been talking to, but I think pro-lifers couldn't care less what the developmental stage of the baby is, they will still care about that baby. (You'll get it eventually--we just don't think anyone has the right to kill babies, even really young ones. Not such a difficult concept to grasp, now, is it??)

reply from: Sigma

Then you recall incorrectly. I gave my opinion on why pro-life people, at least on this board, insist on using it and revile any who do not. I also recall you quit the discussion.

reply from: Tam

Then you recall incorrectly. I gave my opinion on why pro-life people, at least on this board, insist on using it and revile any who do not.

But your opinion was crap, Sigma. That's what I was pointing out then, and now.

Really? Well, I've been away for several days--please, if there are unanswered issues that you'd like addressed, bump the thread and I'll try to get to it ASAP. This is among my favorite debating subjects, because it's just too easy for us and so hard for you--about as hard as choking out the word "ch--i---ld" is.

reply from: Mugen

The pro-choice viewpoint is on shaky ground in the realm of public opinion. There are many underlying assumptions that lead people to label themselves as pro-choice, when they are not truly in favor of abortion in non-health related instances. For starters, many people are given misinformation on the goals of pro-lifers or on the true message of the pro-choice movement.(This type of misinformation is committed by both sides, I do not deny that) Pro-choicers also play up assertions by members of the public that they are in favor of Roe. But a lot of people are only in favor because they think overturning it would equate a ban on abortion, instead of a return to state control. I'm not trying to attack pro-choicers, many are sensible in their approach, but most of those who are actually in control of the movement realize these facts and realize that they have to put their view in the best light to maintain a dwindling public support or at worst public confusion. Acknowledging facts, like the fact that a fetus is a biological human, would make this nearly impossible.

reply from: yoda

You've got that right. Ignoring ordinary science and medical fact is part and parcel of their propaganda efforts, for obvious reasons.

reply from: Sigma

What leads you to believe this, Mugen, if you don’t mind me butting in here?

Concernedparent, the one you quoted, does not believe this to be so. He believes that overturning Roe automatically or necessarily will make abortion illegal.

How would acknowledging that the fetus is biologically human damage the pro-choice argument?

reply from: Mugen

Sigma

I believe there have been shifting poll numbers towards pro-life over the years, though pro-choice is still higher, but I may be wrong on that. All I actually meant was that it is a controversial issues and most of America is not solidly on one side or the other. Also I believe there is a negative assocation with the pro-choice movement being seen as unreasonable and pushy. But perhaps this latter viewpoint is tainted by my own personal opinion.

Well, I do not believe concernedparent is correct. Overturning Roe would only mean that abortion rights were not guaranteed in the Constitution, it would not automatically mean that the unborn were protected. Personally, I think it is fairly clear the Constitution does neither.

It wouldn't, necessarily. I was stating that it would damage the public's perception of the pro-choice argument. And that is where the debate is won or lost, regardless of how intellectually sound the arguments of either side are. The leaders of the pro-choice movement, not necessarily individual pro-choicers like yourself, have done a good job of making this an issue of women's rights, and largely ignoring the status of the fetus. It is important that this perception is maintained.

reply from: Sigma

The poll numbers I've seen are in constant flux year to year, but overall the nation stays pretty evenly divided with pro-choice having a slight lead (about 10%). Your assessment may be correct, I would not be unbiased enough to give an answer to that.

Agreed.

Agreed again. This is, I believe, the crux of the matter. Pro-choice people require the focus to remain on the woman, while pro-life people need the focus to remain on the fetus. Each disregard the other's focus as unimportant, or at least the rights of the other's focus.

No meaningful compromise can be made if both parties think the other will take everything if any compromise is proposed. Imo, of course.

reply from: Mugen

Sigma

Well, that was my understanding too, but I thought I read it had been more than ten percent before the 90s. Once more, I'm not sure on that. Either way, as to your comments on compromise, I completely agree. The current feelings on both sides completely prevent this. At this point, however, I think the pro-choicers share a larger burden of the blame, or at least pro-choice leaders. With the current state of law, they really have no need to compromise, and they make no secret of this. It probably would be the same with pro-lifers if they had their view constitutionally enforced, but that doesn't change the problem with pro-choice leaders.

reply from: JohnKWalker

It is categorically false that the Supreme Court’s ever overturning Roe v. Wade (which, technically, is not even the current controlling case, which is Casey v. Planned Parenthood), would itself make abortion illegal anywhere in America, even if such a decision were absolute, rather than some sort of compromise (one only allowing further abortion restrictions, but not complete proscription). Such an action would simply permit state legislatures, territorial governments, and the Congress to once again legislate the issue.

The only way this sort of extreme result, in effect placing pre-birth children under the protection of homicide laws, would occur as the result of any Supreme Court decision would be if they miraculously declared that personhood begins at conception. But those admirably idealistic (but dangerously naïve) dreamers hoping for this outcome must not be aware that even prior to the abortion-liberalization movement of the late 1960’s that culminated in Roe v. Wade in January 1973, abortion was illegal everywhere in America, but was nowhere classified as homicide. Furthermore, if and when there is an anti-Roe/Casey majority on the Court, in order to maintain their own authority (and comity with the dissenting minority) they will certainly NOT explicitly state that “Roe was absurdly decided” (even though everyone, even fervent abortion rights supporters, knows this full well); they will talk around it, saying that social conditions and scientific knowledge have changed since then, etc.

Most unfortunately, this lack of realism seems behind the current, futile attempt I have described by pro-life South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint to simply have Congress declare that personhood begins at conception – an idea that already (deservedly) failed 25 years ago! (The federal courts, including even an anti-Roe Supreme Court, would invalidate this sort of action in about 5 seconds, possibly even using the reasoning in a decision reversing Roe!) And I have recently read a blog by a pro-life leader (whom I personally know and otherwise respect) along the same lines, declaring that once Roe is trashed, all pre-birth babies will automatically be under the same legal protections as everyone else. I wish this were so, but attempting to enforce this would be immediately thrown out of any court, unless the individual state had already passed legislation to this effect.

So, such a pro-life ideal would require an actual pro-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is not remotely feasible for now (though with demographic social trends in our favor, perhaps someday).

In fact, essentially the opposite outcome lies on the horizon, for as things stand now, the pro-life movement is headed for the worst letdown and sense of betrayal imaginable should the Supreme Court ever abandon its self-appointed, non-constitutional position as super-legislature in this area, because in the last few years the abortion industry has been inoculating itself (and its lucrative income stream) against such an eventuality by litigating within the judiciaries of “red” states (those with sufficiently pro-life voting majorities to end legally sanction for abortion) to either explicitly or effectively construe these respective state constitutions in their favor, in order to guarantee the same right to abortion that Roe and Casey supposedly found in the U. S. Constitution! Since no one within the pro-life leadership (including many I have personally contacted) seems to actually give a damn about this, in order to alter the status quo while there is time before any substantive reversal by the U.S. Court, this eventual, and absolutely certain, train wreck will publically expose their indifference and failure to match the other sides’ clever efforts. But tragically, it will then be too late do anything about it, and legal abortion-on- demand will continue in these states (such as my own Arizona), even with pro-life legislative and popular majorities to end the barbaric practice.

reply from: JohnKWalker

Yes, I acknowledged the infinitesimally unlikely possibilty that the Justices would experience such an epiphany. And I am truly not being sarcastic here, but I presume that the second coming would also accomplish the same thing by revealing the truth to all people's hearts, and that no one would want to kill their children anymore. But if the purpose of the pro-life movement is to actually accomplish something within the legal/political realm in the meantime to protect pre-birth babies' lives, it is required to deal with reality as it is. And one of the few accurate claims in Blackmun's original Roe decision was that "fetuses" had not been legally considered persons up to then (hence the fact that homicide laws were not sufficient to outlaw abortion). If the 1973 Burger court had had enough integrity to do so then, they could have so declared this scientific reality to apply constitutionally, but instead opted for the same "logic" as the Taney court did in Dred Scott. And as a practical, face-saving matter, there is not the slightest chance that any future SCOTUS ruling would do so, and it is a travesty for anyone in the pro-life movement to waste resources pursuing this angle.

All my respect to you...

reply from: JohnKWalker

ConcernedParent,

I was not referring to you as "wasting resources" on the possibility of the SCOTUS actually declaring that constitutional personhood begins at conception, since I was aware that you were engaged in speculation, just as everyone else here is, and as far as I know you have not personally committed any time to pursuing this possibility. The primary reason I characterized the odds as astronomically against this sort of outcome is that it would require Justices who have already upheld Blackmun's asinine "reasoning" in Roe v. Wade to completely reverse themselves -- not just new Justices, unless we are talking about waiting another 10 - 15 years. What is legally significant here is that even the two original dissenters from Roe and Doe, Justices White and Rehnquist, did not make the argument that constitutional personhood began at conception, only that the Supreme Court was overreaching in invalidating the laws of the 33 states tha prohibited abortion-on-demand at that time. Nor has this point ever been made in any subsequent abortion cases decided at the federal level, not even in the forceful dissents by Justice Scalia.

(And I was actually applying the "wasting resources" remark to my own state right-to-life organizations.)

Also, I do know of a couple of pre-Roe cases before state Supreme Courts (Massachusetts and Illinois) in which dissenting Justices DID make the correct moral, and scientifically accurate, claim that there is no substantivel distinction between pre- and post-birth children, but neither the majorities in those decisions nor the U.S. Supreme Court has ever demonstrated the level of integrity that you, I, and all pro-lifers wish they would -- e.g. saying something like "so-called civilized society has already been down the catastrophic road of defining out of legal existence entire clasees of people, and we will not permit this sort of war crime to occur again in America." Alas, this has not occurred and is extremely unlikely to at anytime in the life of anyone living today.

Best wishes and by all means continue brainstorming.

reply from: yoda

Prolifers do not claim that the baby has the right to kill it's mother, whereas proaborts do say that the mother has the right to kill the baby.

BIG difference.

reply from: Tam

Prolifers do not claim that the baby has the right to kill it's mother, whereas proaborts do say that the mother has the right to kill the baby.

BIG difference.

Also, prolifers don't pretend the mother doesn't exist, isn't human, isn't alive, or isn't a person with the right to live. ALL of those things are done by prochoicers in an effort to pretend the unborn child is NOT the same child as the born child. The fact that every single born child IS the same child as s/he was in the womb doesn't seem to penetrate.

reply from: Sigma

When have I not accepted that the difference between just before birth and just after birth is its location? Both you and yodavater are creating strawmen.

reply from: yoda

Wow, Tam, this guy thinks he's "all prochoicers"...........

reply from: Sigma

You were responding to me and tam was adding on to what you said

You accept I have never made the argument that you are criticizing then?

reply from: yoda

And WHERE did either of us say that we were speaking of ONLY YOU????

reply from: Sigma

When you respond to me and make reference to pro-choice people, I can only assume you are referring to me at least in part.

reply from: Tam

When have I not accepted that the difference between just before birth and just after birth is its location? Both you and yodavater are creating strawmen.

LOL

First of all, I wasn't just talking about you, I meant what I said (now there's a switch!! LOL When will you get it that I mean what I say??).

Second of all, you may have admitted that "just before birth" the baby is no different from that same baby "just after birth" in any way other than location. If you admitted that, you'd be wrong--there is a great deal of difference between an unborn child just before birth and a born child just after birth. The way their bodies take in nutrition is totally different, the way their bodies take in oxygen is totally different, the entire substance of their world is totally different, and their legal status is totally different. I was calling attention NOT to the similarities between the child just before birth and the same child just after birth. The similarities and differences are wholly irrelevant to what I was saying.

I was merely pointing out that the baby just after birth is the SAME child that exists "just before birth" and a month before, two months before, and at every stage and age of the child's life. That it's the same child the whole time--from conception until natural (or unnatural) death--it's the same child. He or she is a child with a life, and it's the same child and the same life whether that child is 4 years old or 4 months "gestational age". Abortion just cuts that life very, very short.

reply from: Sigma

Same in what way, then? Genetically?

reply from: Tam

Same in what way, then? Genetically?

You are unbelievable. Same as in the SAME CHILD. As in, when you were five years old, which was apparently not that long ago, you were the SAME CHILD you are now. THE SAME HUMAN BEING.

In what way?!?! The only way. I didn't say the child was the same AS some other child--s/he is the SAME CHILD.

reply from: Sigma

What is the "only way" to make this determination? How do you determine if a child you see now is the same as the one you see 10 years from now? 10 years ago? In the womb? At conception? Since it isn't "they look the same" (I'm assuming), the only way I see is that they are the same genetically. Is this correct?

reply from: yoda

I think you have just won the "Silliest Post of the Century Award", Sig. Would you like it in silver or bronze?

reply from: Sigma

If you do not like dealing with my attitude, there is a very easy route for you to take. Especially since I was responding to tam and not you. Nothing I said warrants your hostility.

You simply restated what tam said, you did not answer the question. If neither you nor tam have an answer then that’s fine. Responding with insults is not warranted.

reply from: Tam

You simply restated what tam said, you did not answer the question. If neither you nor tam have an answer then that’s fine. Responding with insults is not warranted.

Actually, it is. The only reason I'm not responding with insults is that it's against the rules. Insults are EXACTLY what are warranted by your ridiculous post. Although I don't think what CP said even qualifies as an insult/personal attack--Perhaps his word choice was poor, but the sentiment was right on the money IMO, in pointing out that your sole motivation for being here seems to be to act obnoxious. The post in question definitely doesn't deserve serious consideration, and even when I gave you a serious answer, your further response was even less worthy of respect than your initial ridiculous response.

A child of five would understand this. Someone fetch me a child of five. (Groucho Marx)

reply from: Sigma

And why is this?

I assumed when I first responded that you were referring to the "minutes before birth/minutes after birth" distinction and saying that they were the same (as in virtually the same gestational age/same point in development). When you corrected me and said that was not the case, I asked what you meant by "the same". You won't give me a direct answer to this question.

reply from: Tam

And why is this?

I assumed when I first responded that you were referring to the "minutes before birth/minutes after birth" distinction and saying that they were the same (as in virtually the same gestational age/same point in development). When you corrected me and said that was not the case, I asked what you meant by "the same". You won't give me a direct answer to this question.

When you go home tonight and go to sleep in your little bed and wake up in the morning, you will be the SAME person you are right now. Yesterday, before you went to bed last night, you were the SAME person you are now, and were the SAME person you will be tomorrow. If you go way, way back in time to your birth, you were the SAME person you are today. If you have NO CONCEPT of what is meant by this, then you have not got the capacity to understand my point that the child in the womb is the SAME CHILD who is born and the SAME CHILD who is conceived and the SAME CHILD who is killed in an abortion.

If you have a coffee table in your living room, and you put it in your den, it is the SAME COFFEE TABLE. If you have a car in your garage, and you smash the car and it goes to the junkyard, it is still the SAME CAR. If you have a picture of your child as a baby on your desk, and a picture of that child's graduation on the wall, and a picture of that child's wedding on the mantel--all three pictures are of the SAME CHILD. If you have an ultrasound of that child--it's THE SAME CHILD.

THE SAME CHILD. If you even remotely pretend you don't understand this point, I have NO further help for you. I am utterly disgusted.

reply from: Sigma

What about me was the same that would apply to me 3 days after conception? I don’t have the same memories, I don’t have the same viewpoint or attitude or temperament or personality or anything besides genetics that I know of. The common thread that connects you from today to tomorrow does not exist 3 days after conception.

And when that wood was a freshly felled tree, was it the SAME COFFEE TABLE? It has the same wood, but what connects the coffee table in the living room and the coffee table in the den does not exist when it was a tree. This analogy only really works in the “minutes before birth/minutes after birth” point.

reply from: cali1981

Whoa. This is absolutely untrue. Pro-lifers do NOT want the focus to remain on the fetus. We respect and love both mother AND child in situations like this. And we do NOT disregard any rights of the mother. All we say is that the mother doesn't and shouldn't have the right to kill her child. Saying that one person doesn't have the right to kill another does NOT equate with making the one who can't kill "less important" somehow. If someone tells me that I can't kill you, they are not saying that you are more important than I am; just that whatever reasons I might have for wanting you dead are outweighed by your right to live.

People's rights DO NOT conflict! It's just that rights can be exercised only to the extent that they do not harm someone else. The rights of mother and child are not mutually exclusive. Do you get it?

reply from: yoda

My money is on "NO".

reply from: Sigma

cali1981,

She does have certain rights, such as the right to bodily integrity, a right to privacy, etc, which currently justify or allow abortion. In order to protect the fetus, the rights of the fetus must justify violating the woman’s rights in these areas. The woman’s rights would be less important or in some way less worthy of protection than the rights of the fetus.

Except you’re wrong. One may exercise one’s rights to kill another in certain situations.

You cannot have both the woman’s rights and the rights of the fetus protected. To protect the ‘right to life’ of the fetus, you would violate or infringe (or however you wish to say it) the freedom of the woman, the right to privacy of the woman, etc. Whether you believe this is justified is your opinion, but to support he rights of one is to violate the rights of the other. Except currently the fetus has no rights to violate.

It happens all the time, cali1981. States cannot violate rights without sufficient justification, but they can violate rights. Disallowing abortion would violate the woman’s right to privacy, which currently States do not have sufficient justification to do.

concernedparent,

Yes. I feel justified criticizing your debating skills, pointing out your ignorance of the subject in general and dismissing you as an unworthy opponent to debate when you flatly state something and then are shown to be wrong and answer logical points with insults.

Likening me to a jackass is a personal attack. If tam wishes to report my posts, I feel no need to suffer your insults either.

reply from: yoda

Yes, we've noticed that you feel self-justified in all your personal attacks. No surprise there, really!

No, he said "acting like a jackass", not that you "were a jackass". BTW, isn't that the animal that Jesus rode into Jerusalem? So isn't that really a compliment?

reply from: Sigma

He likened me to a jackass. Are you seriously suggesting that concernedparent was attempting to compliment me?

reply from: yoda

What she said...........

reply from: Sigma

I give what I'm given. You show me no respect, I give you no respect.

reply from: cali1981

No right to privacy or right to bodily integrity is recognized in the Constitution. The right to life IS guaranteed. That is point number one. (Even if you want to make a case that those rights are somehow implied, it certainly stands to reason that a clearly stated right should supersede ones that have to be inferred from context.) However, even if these so-called "rights" WERE guaranteed...continue to point number two.

Point number two is that there is a HIERARCHY of rights. The right to life is the most important one. This can easily be seen in applications of our law. For example, if a store owner shoots a shoplifter, he will be prosecuted - because the thief's right to life supersedes the owner's right to property.

Yes, you can. You can in the same way you can have both a mother's rights and her born child's rights protected. You can EASILY have ANY TWO PEOPLE'S rights protected. One simply may not harm the other by exercising his or her rights. That is what it means for us all to be equal.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,

I didn’t try to insult you.

You don’t consider me a threat because you do not understand my argument, and seem generally ignorant of the issues involved :-\ When you mischaracterize what I say in every response to me, it shows you have tunnel hearing.

cali1981,

One, there is no explicit ‘right to life’ in the Constitution, cali1981. It is implied at best. Both you and concernedparent need to research the issue beforehand. A right to bodily integrity is considered to exist, both from the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The fetus impacts the woman’s bodily integrity, and the gov’t would violate her right to privacy to require her to continue her pregnancy or to force her to have an abortion.

It varies from State to State, cali1981. Some States allow the killing of another who trespasses on your property. Your life is not required to be in danger. Your ‘hierarchy’ is not Constitutionally enforced. Whether killing is justifies usually depends on what options you have available, as many States have laws that require you to retreat if you are able to before deadly force is justified, even in your own home. Other States do not require you to retreat from your home.

If you accept that everyone has the right to life, and accept that people can be legally killed in certain situations, it contradicts this point. In that situation, one person violated the other’s right to life. It was allowed in that situation, though.

reply from: Sigma

I provided you with the evidence before, and not the Florida law. I linked examples from both New York and Arizona law, which you conveniently ignored, so I have no doubt you will continue your flawed argument in a few days.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif006.pdf is a New Jersey law which allows deadly force in the defense of your property.

Abortion does not need to be justified under this. Our point is with ‘personhood’, which the fetus does not currently fall under and so laws do not address this. My point is that States can create laws to legalize abortion as justified killing. They do not currently do this because abortion is justified as a privacy issue. Precedence is not strictly required, nor is it available since the fetus has never been Constitutionally considered a person.

No, but neither is it solely allowed if the neighbor kid is intent on killing you.

You misunderstand the intent of my argument here. I am not trying to show that abortion can be legalized if the fetus is considered a person under current law (because current law does not allow for the fetus to be considered a Constitutional person). I am showing that States have the authority to determine what is justified killing and there is precedence that killing is justified in other situations besides life-threatening. ‘Bodily harm’ is also a theme, as well as ‘defense of property’.

Though pregnancy could be considered bodily harm.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, right, and the unborn baby is a trespasser, an intruder, is threatening to kill the mother, and has a felony criminal record already. Nasty little buggers!

So glad we have you probabykilling advocates to protect us!

reply from: Sigma

What are you talking about? I claimed to show legal precedence for killing other than in defense of your life.

The use of deadly force is not justifiable in the defense of premises unless the actor reasonably believes that [CHOOSE APPLICABLE PROVISION]:
(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession.[...]
OR
(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate [CHOOSE: arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction.]

If the trespasser is attempting to disposses the actor of his dwelling or commiting property damage, the actor may use deadly force.

reply from: Tam

Ugh! What's the deal with that one? Shipwrecked on a desert island or something?

reply from: Sigma

Read my posts, concernedparent. I was attempting to show there is justification for killing others in different situations, depending on the State.

I am not trying to show that abortion is justified under current law if the fetus were considered a person, nor do I need to in order to make my point. Reading comprehension for the lose.

reply from: Sigma

In this thread? So do I, I said: Some States allow the killing of another who trespasses on your property. Your life is not required to be in danger

reply from: Tam

Ugh! What's the deal with that one? Shipwrecked on a desert island or something?

They were in a lifeboat. It's an interesting case, Regina v. Dudley and Stevens. After several weeks, I think it was, with no food, the captain told the cabin boy "well, son, I'm afraid your time has come." The boy (10 years old I think) replied "What? Me, sir?" The captain then held him in his lap and cut his throat, catching the blood so they could drink it. When they were rescued, his bones were found in the boat. They were acquitted on the grounds that if they had not acted thusly, they may all have died. The custom among seamen was to draw lots in that situation, short straw being sacrificed to feed the others. They claimed the boy had drunk seawater and was dying anyway. They thought that if they allowed the boy to die naturally, the blood might not be fit to drink.

Wow, how tragic!! But I'm not sure that your assessment is correct. In a few minutes of miscellaneous poking about on the web, I found some stuff--who knows how accurate, but for talking purposes--which indicates that they were not actually acquitted.

First of all, there were apparently 4 on board. The "cabin boy" was 17 (technically a boy, but nearly an adult). Two of the men wanted to kill the boy, and the other one did not assent. D and S were found guilty, on the principle that one may not take the life of another to save one's own. In this case, the men were *not* certainly going to die, but killed the boy anyway. The court apparently stated originally, "It is plain that the principle [of necessity in cases of stranding] leaves it to him who is to profit by it to determine the necessity which will justify him in deliberately taking another's life to save his own." Apparently D and S were sentenced to death, but the sentences were later commuted to 6 months. The logic to the short sentence was apparently that the judgment was strictly retributive.

This hypothetical scenario was presented somewhere as food for thought:

Edo and Mark are mountaineers tied together by a rope, Mark looses his footing and falls off cliff, and will pull Edo down. Edo holds on for a few seconds, but feels himself about to be pulled over the cliff. He may cut the rope. Unlike the above case, there is an imminent threat. Also, Mark is an "aggressor", unlike the boy above, and by slipping, he threatened Edo's life. Here, Edo was allowing nature to take its course. In the above case, the boy was not certain to die, so they were not allowing nature to take its course.

For the same reason that I would argue that the violinist (or his agents) have no right to kidnap, violate, and imprison me to ensure his survival, I would hold that D&S had no right to kill Parker. Yes, their lives were threatened--but not by Parker. I also argue, for the same reason, that a woman whose life is threatened by a disease has no right to kill her unborn child in order to pursue a specific course of treatment for that disease. I do agree that Edo has the right to cut the rope. Reminds me of a very moving scene from "The Day After Tomorrow" but I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen the movie.

reply from: cali1981

This is hilarious. HILARIOUS! There is "no explicit right to life" in the Constitution?! I need to "research this issue"?! Okay, Sigma. How's this for "research"? I'll QUOTE THE CONSTITUTION directly.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I CAN'T BELIEVE that you are telling people there is no explicit right to life in the Constitution. What a hoot! Do your research, Siggy!
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have nothing to do with pregnancy. (Especially not the Fourteenth.) The Fourth is about the freedom from search and seizure.
I feel like bursting out laughing every time a pro-choicer goes on and on about how a child in his mother's womb violates her rights. Being in the womb is a completely natural and required process for each of us to survive. Did each of us violate our mother's rights as we lived and grew in her womb?
This is even more hilarious because the reasons women have abortions are completely unrelated to this phantom "bodily integrity" issue. Even Planned Parenthood's website confirms this. It's just a skirt for proaborts to hide behind, a meaningless justification that applies to no one.

reply from: holopaw

I disagree, a unborn child does not have a greater right to life than his or her mother. If a pregnant woman has cancer, I think she is fully within her rights to get chemotherapy treatments even if the child is killed as a result. I don't even consider that an abortion. It is an outcome of a procedure meant to sustain life. Abortion is a procedure to end life.

reply from: NewPoster1

This is hilarious. HILARIOUS! There is "no explicit right to life" in the Constitution?! I need to "research this issue"?! Okay, Sigma. How's this for "research"? I'll QUOTE THE CONSTITUTION directly.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I CAN'T BELIEVE that you are telling people there is no explicit right to life in the Constitution. What a hoot! Do your research, Siggy!
It is incorrect to construe this amendment as guaranteeing a constitutional "right to life".
Take note of what it says.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Even if I accepted the arguement that a fetus/embryo is a person, it is the woman who is depriving it of life, not the state.
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have nothing to do with pregnancy. (Especially not the Fourteenth.) The Fourth is about the freedom from search and seizure.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
With regards to the states, forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of her constitutionally-protected liberty.
As far as the fourth amendment is concerned, forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is an unjustified seizure of her body.
If she was forced to remain pregnant against her will, than yes.
I think you've misunderstood this, "bodily integrity" is the reason why women have the "right to have" an abortion, not the reason why they "choose to have" one.

reply from: cali1981

Seriously, WTF?! We have a right to life as citizens of this country! If we don't, then how can we justify prosecuting people who kill other people?
Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds (not to mention how logically inconsistent it is)? If the state says it will permit the murder of one person by another, then the state bears the fault for murders that occur. When the government grants a right, it protects that right - which not only means refraining from violating the right, but prosecuting and punishing anyone who may violate it. There are a million examples of this phenomenon, and it is how we derive laws. People have a right to property; therefore, the government may not seize anyone's property, nor may any non-government-affiliated person. That's called stealing, and anyone can go to prison for it, government official or no government official.
Finally, your "not accepting" the argument that a fetus/embryo is a person is kind of like "not accepting" that grass is green. It's not yours to accept or not accept - it's a fact. Person is and has always been synonymous with human being, a.k.a. human individual, and science makes it clear that an unborn child is indisputably a human individual. You were a human individual a day after your birth, during your birth, a day before your birth, a month before your birth, two months, five months, all the way back to whenever you were conceived. At no point in your existence were you not a human individual. There was no miraculous or magic event that happened at any point between your conception and your birth that made you suddenly morph from a nothing to a human being. You always were one, and so were all the rest of us. That is a fact, and no amount of arguing semantics will ever change it.
Who has ever said anything about forcing a woman to remain pregnant? The idea of disallowing abortion has absolutely nothing to do with forcing a woman to remain pregnant. Pregnancy is a completely natural and required process for each person's life to continue; it is a process of growth and development that happens all on its own. Saying that a person may not artificially stop a natural and universal process that is already underway if such a stop will hurt someone else is not even close to the same as forcing someone to undergo any experience. Do not make it seem as though they are the same.
That said, since it is not possible to "force" anyone to continue something that continues freely on its own (that would be like saying that I'm forcing you to continue living because I'm forbidding others from killing you, when really your life continues on its own because there is no outside interference), this cannot be an issue of liberty. What would be an intrusion on liberty would be to remove from people the choice of whether or not to have children in the first place. But people do have that choice, so it is perfectly legitimate for a government to say that once you have a child, you can't kill him/her.
First of all, see above: saying that a woman can't kill a child growing within her has absolutely nothing to do with forcing that woman to do anything, and everything to do with allowing the child's life to continue uninterrupted. Second of all, in no way can a pregnancy be considered a seizure of a woman's body. Did the government put the child there? NO! Did someone else sneak in without the woman's knowledge and put the child there? NO! Did the child sneak himself or herself into the woman's body? NO! Women are participants in their pregnancies; their actions create them and nature sustains them. The government has nothing to do with seeing this process out. If you don't want a child, the time to decide that is before the child exists, not after. And even if you kill an existing child, that won't change the fact that you had one.
This is hilarious! So if our mothers wanted us, we didn't violate their rights, but if they didn't want us, we did violate their rights? WTF, mate? That makes no sense at all. Are you actually saying that the only reason we each enjoy our lives today is because way back when, our mothers deigned to allow us to live? Our right to live free from being killed by others wasn't and shouldn't have been protected by the government?
Oh no, I haven't misunderstood. Really, I'm quite smart and catch onto these things quite well. I would explain further at this point, but I don't want to sound as condescending to you as you did to me.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Which is why Roe vs. Wade needs to be overturned, so it will go to the states.
LOL!!!
So let me get this straight... liberty is a Constitutional right, but life isn't?
Excluding rape victims, no woman is forced to be pregnant. She got herself pregnant. She could have not gotten pregnant, but she did. But she certainly wasn't forced.
There's nothing in the Constitution about bodily intregity. Pregnancy is natural, and virtually all women who gets abortions got themselves pregnant. Unborn children are supposed to be in their mother's body, it is a scientific fact.

reply from: Tam

I disagree, a unborn child does not have a greater right to life than his or her mother. If a pregnant woman has cancer, I think she is fully within her rights to get chemotherapy treatments even if the child is killed as a result. I don't even consider that an abortion. It is an outcome of a procedure meant to sustain life. Abortion is a procedure to end life.
Oh, I could not disagree more. However, I am aware that most of our society is utterly brainwashed into thinking that chemotherapy and radiation are the best ways to deal with cancer. In that context, I find it *understandable* that many pregnant cancer patients choose abortion. I do not, however, find it the least bit *acceptable*.
THe exact method used to kill the child is irrelevant, no? Whether it's a saline abortion, a D&X, or chemicals--what does it matter to the dead baby?

reply from: Tam

That is ludicrous.
By "forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will" you mean "preventing her from killing her unborn child." You are using a euphemism for "forbid them to kill their offspring in utero". That is quite different. When you have urine in your bladder, if I pay a doctor to sew your bladder shut, I am preventing you from urinating. But if I advocate for a law that says you cannot pay a doctor to cut open your bladder and empty it of urine, that is not the same thing as saying I am forcing you to urinate against your will. If I do nothing, you will eventually urinate. It's a natural process, and as the bladder fills, you eventually succumb, even if you don't want to (in which case you might wet your pants). But forbidding you from paying for surgery to artificially empty your bladder is NOT the same thing as forcing you to urinate. No one is forcing you to urinate. That happens naturally, because--you gotta go. Likewise, if a womb contains a child, that child will be born, unless the mother dies. Even if the child dies, a still birth will occur. We can no more "force" anyone to "continue a pregnancy" than we can "force" someone to urinate--or to exhale. These things happen naturally. Your euphemisms may hide from yourself the nature of what you advocate, but they don't hide it from me.

reply from: cali1981

Thanks for repeating your fantastic analogy, Tam. It's seamless, and really highlights the dishonesty of using the word "force" with regard to opposing abortion. Keep using it - as I'm sure you will!

reply from: holopaw

I disagree, a unborn child does not have a greater right to life than his or her mother. If a pregnant woman has cancer, I think she is fully within her rights to get chemotherapy treatments even if the child is killed as a result. I don't even consider that an abortion. It is an outcome of a procedure meant to sustain life. Abortion is a procedure to end life.
Oh, I could not disagree more. However, I am aware that most of our society is utterly brainwashed into thinking that chemotherapy and radiation are the best ways to deal with cancer. In that context, I find it *understandable* that many pregnant cancer patients choose abortion. I do not, however, find it the least bit *acceptable*.
THe exact method used to kill the child is irrelevant, no? Whether it's a saline abortion, a D&X, or chemicals--what does it matter to the dead baby?
I don't care what the condition is. I used cancer as an example. It could be a heart condition. I'm not a doctor, but I know pregnancies can be dangerous.
I never said the woman should have an abortion. I said if the treatment to save her life ends the baby's life, it's an unfortunate circumstance, but I don't fault her for the treatment.
As I said the intent is not to kill the baby, it's to save the mother. Why is the baby's life more important than the mother's?
If the mother dies and the baby is not viable. It dies too. No?

reply from: cali1981

(emphasis added)
Certain parts of this decision (which I feel was injust to begin with) sure got shot in the a ss, didn't it? We now have abortion on demand for any reason at all, or even for no real reason!
Thanks for posting this, CP. We now have exact quotes that show the spirit of the Roe v. Wade decision.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Sometimes I think doctors try to give women as many reasons as possible not to have babies. They keep narrowing down the safe age range -- now they pretty much say its just safe in your twenties and my mom had my sis and I in her thirties. my great-gradmother had an enlarged heart, all her pregnancies (9) we healthy, and she lived to be 89. I agree that if a baby dies in a result of trying to help the mom its not abortion, however I think mom's are obligated to search for things that do not harm the baby in the first place when seeking treatment, and to not get scared by possible unvalidated risks to their health.

reply from: holopaw

Sometimes I think doctors try to give women as many reasons as possible not to have babies. They keep narrowing down the safe age range -- now they pretty much say its just safe in your twenties and my mom had my sis and I in her thirties. my great-gradmother had an enlarged heart, all her pregnancies (9) we healthy, and she lived to be 89. I agree that if a baby dies in a result of trying to help the mom its not abortion, however I think mom's are obligated to search for things that do not harm the baby in the first place when seeking treatment, and to not get scared by possible unvalidated risks to their health.
I agree. Some smart women up here. Ash is a prodigy.

reply from: Tam

Thanks! I have found a use for it no less than three times in the past day or so. LOL
It's so nice to have you back, Cali!!!

reply from: Tam

I don't care what the condition is. I used cancer as an example. It could be a heart condition. I'm not a doctor, but I know pregnancies can be dangerous.
I never said the woman should have an abortion. I said if the treatment to save her life ends the baby's life, it's an unfortunate circumstance, but I don't fault her for the treatment.
If she CHOOSES to take a pill that she KNOWS will kill her baby, then she is committing abortion. The ONLY circumstances under which it would be ok to take such a pill (or whatever the treatment is) is if she KNOWS that her life will end IMMEDIATELY if she does not pursue that SPECIFIC course of treatment.
I believe there is no condition for which the only treatment will kill your baby. I feel sad that so many people are led to believe otherwise, but their ignorance is no excuse for killing those babies.
What? The intent should always be to save both lives. Why on earth would you intend to save the mother at the expense of the child? Intend to save both lives and, if you fail, at least your failure was not a moral failure.
Definitely--the goal should always be to save both lives. If one life is in imminent danger and there is ACTUALLY only one way to treat it (not only one "conventional" way, but ACTUALLY only one way), then you must do what needs to be done, IN THE CONTEXT OF trying to save both lives. Saving the life of the baby is not an afterthought once the mom is okay--both lives are important and worth fighting for.

reply from: holopaw

I don't care what the condition is. I used cancer as an example. It could be a heart condition. I'm not a doctor, but I know pregnancies can be dangerous.
I never said the woman should have an abortion. I said if the treatment to save her life ends the baby's life, it's an unfortunate circumstance, but I don't fault her for the treatment.
If she CHOOSES to take a pill that she KNOWS will kill her baby, then she is committing abortion. The ONLY circumstances under which it would be ok to take such a pill (or whatever the treatment is) is if she KNOWS that her life will end IMMEDIATELY if she does not pursue that SPECIFIC course of treatment.
I believe there is no condition for which the only treatment will kill your baby. I feel sad that so many people are led to believe otherwise, but their ignorance is no excuse for killing those babies.
What? The intent should always be to save both lives. Why on earth would you intend to save the mother at the expense of the child? Intend to save both lives and, if you fail, at least your failure was not a moral failure.
Definitely--the goal should always be to save both lives. If one life is in imminent danger and there is ACTUALLY only one way to treat it (not only one "conventional" way, but ACTUALLY only one way), then you must do what needs to be done, IN THE CONTEXT OF trying to save both lives. Saving the life of the baby is not an afterthought once the mom is okay--both lives are important and worth fighting for.
It is my policy not to argue with Pro-Lifers more than a round or two. I concede. Love you, Tam.

reply from: Tam

LOL I love you too, holo.

reply from: cali1981

I love you as well!
You've posted so many gems lately. I'm still waiting for a response from NP on this thread...

reply from: Tam

I don't know which of us you are addressing (holo or me) but I sure love you too, Cali. SO nice to have you back!
I, too, would like to see that response.

reply from: 1003

off-topic, i know, but pastebin.com is invaluable.

reply from: cali1981

Almost three months later, still waiting for NP's response to me on this thread.
This is a good thread to read anyway, so it can't hurt to bump it. I just can't resist pointing out when pro-aborts drop the ball on arguments. It nearly always means that they hit a wall in their point of view and have no logical response to whatever the pro-lifer is suggesting.
Seriously, WTF?! We have a right to life as citizens of this country! If we don't, then how can we justify prosecuting people who kill other people?
Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds (not to mention how logically inconsistent it is)? If the state says it will permit the murder of one person by another, then the state bears the fault for murders that occur. When the government grants a right, it protects that right - which not only means refraining from violating the right, but prosecuting and punishing anyone who may violate it. There are a million examples of this phenomenon, and it is how we derive laws. People have a right to property; therefore, the government may not seize anyone's property, nor may any non-government-affiliated person. That's called stealing, and anyone can go to prison for it, government official or no government official.
Finally, your "not accepting" the argument that a fetus/embryo is a person is kind of like "not accepting" that grass is green. It's not yours to accept or not accept - it's a fact. Person is and has always been synonymous with human being, a.k.a. human individual, and science makes it clear that an unborn child is indisputably a human individual. You were a human individual a day after your birth, during your birth, a day before your birth, a month before your birth, two months, five months, all the way back to whenever you were conceived. At no point in your existence were you not a human individual. There was no miraculous or magic event that happened at any point between your conception and your birth that made you suddenly morph from a nothing to a human being. You always were one, and so were all the rest of us. That is a fact, and no amount of arguing semantics will ever change it.
Who has ever said anything about forcing a woman to remain pregnant? The idea of disallowing abortion has absolutely nothing to do with forcing a woman to remain pregnant. Pregnancy is a completely natural and required process for each person's life to continue; it is a process of growth and development that happens all on its own. Saying that a person may not artificially stop a natural and universal process that is already underway if such a stop will hurt someone else is not even close to the same as forcing someone to undergo any experience. Do not make it seem as though they are the same.
That said, since it is not possible to "force" anyone to continue something that continues freely on its own (that would be like saying that I'm forcing you to continue living because I'm forbidding others from killing you, when really your life continues on its own because there is no outside interference), this cannot be an issue of liberty. What would be an intrusion on liberty would be to remove from people the choice of whether or not to have children in the first place. But people do have that choice, so it is perfectly legitimate for a government to say that once you have a child, you can't kill him/her.
First of all, see above: saying that a woman can't kill a child growing within her has absolutely nothing to do with forcing that woman to do anything, and everything to do with allowing the child's life to continue uninterrupted. Second of all, in no way can a pregnancy be considered a seizure of a woman's body. Did the government put the child there? NO! Did someone else sneak in without the woman's knowledge and put the child there? NO! Did the child sneak himself or herself into the woman's body? NO! Women are participants in their pregnancies; their actions create them and nature sustains them. The government has nothing to do with seeing this process out. If you don't want a child, the time to decide that is before the child exists, not after. And even if you kill an existing child, that won't change the fact that you had one.
This is hilarious! So if our mothers wanted us, we didn't violate their rights, but if they didn't want us, we did violate their rights? WTF, mate? That makes no sense at all. Are you actually saying that the only reason we each enjoy our lives today is because way back when, our mothers deigned to allow us to live? Our right to live free from being killed by others wasn't and shouldn't have been protected by the government?
Oh no, I haven't misunderstood. Really, I'm quite smart and catch onto these things quite well. I would explain further at this point, but I don't want to sound as condescending to you as you did to me.

reply from: cali1981

~bump~
Still bent on pointing out when pro-aborts drop the ball in arguments...

reply from: cali1981

~bump~Still waiting for NP

reply from: NewPoster1

Seriously, WTF?! We have a right to life as citizens of this country! If we don't, then how can we justify prosecuting people who kill other people?
Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds (not to mention how logically inconsistent it is)? If the state says it will permit the murder of one person by another, then the state bears the fault for murders that occur. When the government grants a right, it protects that right - which not only means refraining from violating the right, but prosecuting and punishing anyone who may violate it. There are a million examples of this phenomenon, and it is how we derive laws. People have a right to property; therefore, the government may not seize anyone's property, nor may any non-government-affiliated person. That's called stealing, and anyone can go to prison for it, government official or no government official.
This amendment means nothing more than the fact, that a state may not a execute a person, without having first lawfully convicted them of a crime.
That's your opinion, nothing more. Furthermore, I'm a bit curious where, exactly, the constitution says that life begins at conception?
Who has ever said anything about forcing a woman to remain pregnant? The idea of disallowing abortion has absolutely nothing to do with forcing a woman to remain pregnant. Pregnancy is a completely natural and required process for each person's life to continue; it is a process of growth and development that happens all on its own. Saying that a person may not artificially stop a natural and universal process that is already underway if such a stop will hurt someone else is not even close to the same as forcing someone to undergo any experience. Do not make it seem as though they are the same.
That said, since it is not possible to "force" anyone to continue something that continues freely on its own (that would be like saying that I'm forcing you to continue living because I'm forbidding others from killing you, when really your life continues on its own because there is no outside interference), this cannot be an issue of liberty. What would be an intrusion on liberty would be to remove from people the choice of whether or not to have children in the first place. But people do have that choice, so it is perfectly legitimate for a government to say that once you have a child, you can't kill him/her.
If you forcibly prevent a woman from rendering herself unpregnant, than by necessity, you are forcing her to remain pregnant against her will. You may not like this fact, but it is reality.
First of all, see above: saying that a woman can't kill a child growing within her has absolutely nothing to do with forcing that woman to do anything, and everything to do with allowing the child's life to continue uninterrupted. Second of all, in no way can a pregnancy be considered a seizure of a woman's body. Did the government put the child there? NO! Did someone else sneak in without the woman's knowledge and put the child there? NO!
If she was raped, than yes.
This is hilarious! So if our mothers wanted us, we didn't violate their rights, but if they didn't want us, we did violate their rights? WTF, mate? That makes no sense at all. Are you actually saying that the only reason we each enjoy our lives today is because way back when, our mothers deigned to allow us to live? Our right to live free from being killed by others wasn't and shouldn't have been protected by the government?
Oh no, I haven't misunderstood. Really, I'm quite smart and catch onto these things quite well. I would explain further at this point, but I don't want to sound as condescending to you as you did to me.
Let's just say, for the purpose of arguement, that a fetus/embryo is a person. I'm just dying to find out what part of the constitution, according to you, gives a person the right to remain physically inside of and physically attached to another person, against that person's will?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Perhaps you are also dying to know what part of the constitution gives a person the right to remain in a ghetto, to remain in a suburb, to remain in the south, the midwest, or the gulf states? Once you say that someone has the right to life, you don't have to name every location where they have that right separately.

reply from: cali1981

Oh really? Then what, pray tell, gives the state the right to prosecute people who murder other people? (This would involve answering my earlier question: If we don't have a right to life as citizens of this country, then how can we justify prosecuting people who kill other people?)
Wow. I cannot believe how blatantly you just ignored that entire paragraph in which I listed a whole string of indisputable facts. To WHICH ONE of the many factual statements I just made, exactly, are you making the statement "That's your opinion"?? Maybe we need to review the relevant definitions of "fact" and "opinion":
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Main Entry: ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
So, NP, let's get this straight, once and for all. I presented a paragraph of facts (by definition above, conditions and phenomena that are perceptible by ALL observers, not just an individual thought), and you responded to the whole dang thing by saying "That's your opinion; nothing more." In saying that, you were telling me that instead of presenting a paragraph of phenomena that can be seen and known objectively by anyone, I was presenting a paragraph of subjective impressions from my own personal mind that are not known for certain to be true.
Fine, NP. I want you to explain your statement in detail. Tell me, what specifically, I said in that paragraph, that you claim is a subjective impression that cannot be known or perceived by just any observer, since you claim that it was all opinion. I want to know what EXACTLY I said in that paragraph that you are claiming is unverifiable.
And just to help you out, I'll give some excerpts.
Was it this?
Do you deny that this is the case? Do you deny that we can discover and verify, objectively, how the word "person" has been used in the history of this language and culture? Do you call this an unverifiable, subjective statement?
Was it this?
Do you actually claim that it is a matter of opinion whether an organism is a human individual or not? Do you deny that science can verify this? Do you think that if, given three organisms, I were to assert that one was a rat, another a cow, and another a human, there would be no way for me to back up those assertions factually? Do you deny that there is someone out there with the knowledge necessary to confirm what I said about the identity of each species, to the exclusion of all other possible assessments?
Was it this?
Is this merely an inkling on my part? Do I only have a subjective feeling that you, throughout the entire time of your existence, were a human being? Are you actually claiming that this is "only my opinion?" You think there would be no way to prove this? If a scientist or doctor had examined some of your cells a day after your conception, while you were in your mother's womb, they would have found them to contain UNIQUE HUMAN DNA and thus be HUMAN cells. If they did the same thing five months before your birth, they would have found the same thing. If they did it two months before your birth, guess what? You'd still be a human. I'm pretty sure that even a day before your birth, they'd still be able to find and identify some human cells within your body. That's because for your entire existence, you were a human - because that was the only thing you could be. When it comes to identifying organisms, there is no such thing as a "nothing." Scientists will never identify a living thing as a "nothing," because it is simply NOT OBJECTIVELY POSSIBLE. Once a human, always a human. Was this really what you were calling my "opinion"?
Interesting you should ask. I don't believe that the Constitution makes any statement at all about when life begins. And since it doesn't say, I guess we don't know - it could begin at conception, it could begin at birth, it could begin a month after birth, or it could begin 18 years after birth. Has YOUR life begun yet, NP? Well, the Constitution doesn't say, so I guess we don't know. :-/ After all, it is the ultimate scientific authority about such matters.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but that question deserved nothing more by way of response.
What I find so interesting is that some pro-choicers, even some high-profile pro-choicers like Naomi Wolf, do acknowledge the verifiable scientific fact that life begins at conception - and still make their case for the pro-choice position, but do it more honestly than people like you who try to twist the meanings of known words and concepts. All I can say is, your camp better get its story straight, or your credibility will continue to sink.
Here's an interesting quote from Wolf, along with a link to the webpage where you can find it:
No, it is not. I have explained in great detail - just above - why this is not the case. A pregnant woman will ALWAYS become "unpregnant" by natural means. Advocating for a law that says she cannot make a natural process happen artificially by killing her unborn child IN NO WAY implies "force." If it were possible for me to "force" someone to remain pregnant, that would imply that if I did not apply "force," she would immediately become unpregnant. In reality, if I do nothing, she will still be pregnant until the pregnancy ends itself naturally.
The only way you might have a point here would be if I - or the government; I'm never sure whom you are referring to when you say "you" - somehow forced the woman to become pregnant in the first place. In reality, no government or person who advocates against abortion can force a woman to become pregnant - and we would certainly never want to. All we say is that a woman who has already conceived a child should not be able to kill that child.
LOL What the heck does that mean? "Then yes" WHAT? If she was raped, then yes, the government DID put the child in her womb? If she was raped, then yes, some random person DID sneak in without the woman's knowledge and put the child there? This is absolutely asinine. Do you know how it works when a woman becomes pregnant? There are two participants in the event that brings the child into existence (even if one of them is a criminal) and the government certainly has no knowledge of or participation in that moment! You actually sound as if you're agreeing that (and ONLY in the case of rape) the child is created somewhere else, by someone else and then planted inside the woman by the government or another third party!!! This can't be what you mean, but I can't possibly imagine what you are trying to say here.
LOL This "then yes" response is getting better and better. "Then yes" WHAT?? If she didn't want to be pregnant, "then yes" the child WAS responsible for his/her creation? If she didn't want to be pregnant, "then yes" killing the child WILL change the fact that the child existed?
If I kill you, will that change the fact that you existed? I guess it only will if I didn't want you to in the first place. :-/
NP, there are lots of things that aren't explicitly allowed (or disallowed) in the Constitution. It is a surprisingly short and nonspecific document when we consider all of the extrapolations that have come from it that now govern our nation more than two hundred years after its writing.
When things aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed in the Constitution (which is so often the case), we make extrapolations based on the general things that ARE listed as being allowed and prohibited. Everyone in this country has the right to live free from being killed by another (you are one of very few pro-choicers I have talked to who has actually refused to concede this most basic and obvious point). We often extrapolate this to laws not only requiring people to refrain from killing others, but to actually actively do things to help the person to continue to live and thrive (in the case of requiring parents to pay child support, laws against neglect of children, etc.). Such laws that relate to promoting existence (i.e., not just prohibiting direct killing), require that people who are unable to provide for themselves, such as children, are provide with the most BASIC and UNIVERSAL requirements for life....e.g., food, water, shelter. No one can continue to live without those things. In a similar vein, gestation within a human female is an absolutely basic and universal requirement for everyone to continue living. Every single one of us who is alive today gestated at one point within a woman, and we would have died an extremely early death if we hadn't.
Even if I did concede your rather ridiculous proposition that someone who is merely going through an absolutely universal and basic requirement for their own continued existence could be somehow violating a right, you could never logically say that a tiny pre-born child could violate a right. Violating a right requires being capable of independent action, and it is laughable to argue that an unborn child is capable of such. An unborn child did not create herself and attach herself to the inside of her mother. The actions of someone else - often, her mother - created her and attached her to the inside of her mother. She did not ask to be attached; indeed, she did not even ask to be created. The idea that a helpless, tiny child who wouldn't even exist, let alone be physically attached to another, were it not for the free actions of someone else is capable of "violating" anyone's rights is laughable.

reply from: cali1981

LOL A fantastic point, Shiprah, and stated in a very amusing way!

reply from: yoda

Bingo!
That, and the absence of anything in the constitution giving anyone the right to kill an innocent human being at any time or place, pretty much makes the case.
Well done!

reply from: faithman

The spirit of the constitution is expressed in the pre-amble. The amendments are there to better define the over all spirit. When you count 40 words down in that first paragraph, you find the word POSERITY. Posterity means future generations. WE preserve these blessings for ourselves, and our posterity. The constitution defends the right of the preborn to exist, not destroy it in the mythical right of mommies privacy, which does not exist anywhere in the constitution, but was pulled out of the annal cavity of 7 renigade judges.

reply from: yoda

That's a very accurate description of the source of "legal reasoning" behind Roe & Doe.

reply from: NewPoster1

Oh really? Then what, pray tell, gives the state the right to prosecute people who murder other people? (This would involve answering my earlier question: If we don't have a right to life as citizens of this country, then how can we justify prosecuting people who kill other people?)
We, as legal persons, have the right not to be unjustifiably killed. This doesn't mean that an embryo/fetus is a legal person and even if it were, the fact that it's physically inside of and physically attached to another person, against that person's will, would make it's killing justifiable.
Wow. I cannot believe how blatantly you just ignored that entire paragraph in which I listed a whole string of indisputable facts. To WHICH ONE of the many factual statements I just made, exactly, are you making the statement "That's your opinion"?? Maybe we need to review the relevant definitions of "fact" and "opinion":
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Main Entry: ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
So, NP, let's get this straight, once and for all. I presented a paragraph of facts (by definition above, conditions and phenomena that are perceptible by ALL observers, not just an individual thought), and you responded to the whole dang thing by saying "That's your opinion; nothing more." In saying that, you were telling me that instead of presenting a paragraph of phenomena that can be seen and known objectively by anyone, I was presenting a paragraph of subjective impressions from my own personal mind that are not known for certain to be true.
Fine, NP. I want you to explain your statement in detail. Tell me, what specifically, I said in that paragraph, that you claim is a subjective impression that cannot be known or perceived by just any observer, since you claim that it was all opinion. I want to know what EXACTLY I said in that paragraph that you are claiming is unverifiable.
And just to help you out, I'll give some excerpts.
Was it this?
Do you deny that this is the case? Do you deny that we can discover and verify, objectively, how the word "person" has been used in the history of this language and culture? Do you call this an unverifiable, subjective statement?
Was it this?
Do you actually claim that it is a matter of opinion whether an organism is a human individual or not? Do you deny that science can verify this? Do you think that if, given three organisms, I were to assert that one was a rat, another a cow, and another a human, there would be no way for me to back up those assertions factually? Do you deny that there is someone out there with the knowledge necessary to confirm what I said about the identity of each species, to the exclusion of all other possible assessments?
Was it this?
Is this merely an inkling on my part? Do I only have a subjective feeling that you, throughout the entire time of your existence, were a human being? Are you actually claiming that this is "only my opinion?" You think there would be no way to prove this? If a scientist or doctor had examined some of your cells a day after your conception, while you were in your mother's womb, they would have found them to contain UNIQUE HUMAN DNA and thus be HUMAN cells. If they did the same thing five months before your birth, they would have found the same thing. If they did it two months before your birth, guess what? You'd still be a human. I'm pretty sure that even a day before your birth, they'd still be able to find and identify some human cells within your body. That's because for your entire existence, you were a human - because that was the only thing you could be. When it comes to identifying organisms, there is no such thing as a "nothing." Scientists will never identify a living thing as a "nothing," because it is simply NOT OBJECTIVELY POSSIBLE. Once a human, always a human. Was this really what you were calling my "opinion"?
Your re-response changes nothing. This is all still just your opinion. Just because you believe that what's present at conception is a person, doesn't make it so. If the presence of UNIQUE HUMAN DNA is the sole determining factor of what makes something a "person", then I guess cancer is a person, a severed limb is a person, and identical twins are both the same person.
Interesting you should ask. I don't believe that the Constitution makes any statement at all about when life begins. And since it doesn't say, I guess we don't know - it could begin at conception, it could begin at birth, it could begin a month after birth, or it could begin 18 years after birth. Has YOUR life begun yet, NP? Well, the Constitution doesn't say, so I guess we don't know. :-/ After all, it is the ultimate scientific authority about such matters.
Considering the fact that abortion was perfectly legal, prior to "the quickening", in every state for the first 90 years of the country's existence, I find it laughable that anyone could actually believe that the constitution/founding fathers recognize/recognized personhood as starting at conception.
No, it is not. I have explained in great detail - just above - why this is not the case. A pregnant woman will ALWAYS become "unpregnant" by natural means. Advocating for a law that says she cannot make a natural process happen artificially by killing her unborn child IN NO WAY implies "force." If it were possible for me to "force" someone to remain pregnant, that would imply that if I did not apply "force," she would immediately become unpregnant. In reality, if I do nothing, she will still be pregnant until the pregnancy ends itself naturally.
The only way you might have a point here would be if I - or the government; I'm never sure whom you are referring to when you say "you" - somehow forced the woman to become pregnant in the first place. In reality, no government or person who advocates against abortion can force a woman to become pregnant - and we would certainly never want to. All we say is that a woman who has already conceived a child should not be able to kill that child.
Guess what? Imposition of one's views on another is indeed a form of force.
LOL What the heck does that mean? "Then yes" WHAT? If she was raped, then yes, the government DID put the child in her womb? If she was raped, then yes, some random person DID sneak in without the woman's knowledge and put the child there? This is absolutely asinine. Do you know how it works when a woman becomes pregnant? There are two participants in the event that brings the child into existence (even if one of them is a criminal) and the government certainly has no knowledge of or participation in that moment! You actually sound as if you're agreeing that (and ONLY in the case of rape) the child is created somewhere else, by someone else and then planted inside the woman by the government or another third party!!! This can't be what you mean, but I can't possibly imagine what you are trying to say here.
You're being intentionally dense.
In the case of an impregnated rape victim, her body was seized by the rapist and she was forcibly rendered pregnant by him.
LOL This "then yes" response is getting better and better. "Then yes" WHAT?? If she didn't want to be pregnant, "then yes" the child WAS responsible for his/her creation? If she didn't want to be pregnant, "then yes" killing the child WILL change the fact that the child existed?
If I kill you, will that change the fact that you existed? I guess it only will if I didn't want you to in the first place. :-/
NP, there are lots of things that aren't explicitly allowed (or disallowed) in the Constitution. It is a surprisingly short and nonspecific document when we consider all of the extrapolations that have come from it that now govern our nation more than two hundred years after its writing.
When things aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed in the Constitution (which is so often the case), we make extrapolations based on the general things that ARE listed as being allowed and prohibited. Everyone in this country has the right to live free from being killed by another (you are one of very few pro-choicers I have talked to who has actually refused to concede this most basic and obvious point). We often extrapolate this to laws not only requiring people to refrain from killing others, but to actually actively do things to help the person to continue to live and thrive (in the case of requiring parents to pay child support, laws against neglect of children, etc.). Such laws that relate to promoting existence (i.e., not just prohibiting direct killing), require that people who are unable to provide for themselves, such as children, are provide with the most BASIC and UNIVERSAL requirements for life....e.g., food, water, shelter. No one can continue to live without those things. In a similar vein, gestation within a human female is an absolutely basic and universal requirement for everyone to continue living. Every single one of us who is alive today gestated at one point within a woman, and we would have died an extremely early death if we hadn't.
It is not the least bit necessary for the one who is pregnant.
If the woman doesn't wish for it to remain inside of and attached to her, then it's presence violates her rights by default.

reply from: yoda

"Default"? That was a long winded post that ended in a non-sensical slogan. But perhaps you are only referring to Roe as the "default", as if we were unaware of it after 33 years?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Newposter, once blacks weren't legal ppl. I guess it was okay to kill them. Secondly, phys attachment doesn't have baring on morality. One conjoined twin cannot kill the other. The founding fathers didn't consider an awful lot of ppl real humans -- would you use them as your moral compass for that? Great, so I guess when I impose my view on a man not to commit rape I'm using force. Fine. Is force a bad thing? More than unique DNA makes you human New Poster, http://www.all.org/abac/aq0203.htm Excuse the format of this post, I'm going point by point but I didn't want to repost that whole long thing again.

reply from: NewPoster1

If you are handicapped, and I park in a "handicapped only" parking space, forcing you to park elsewhere. I have violated your rights, but that doesn't give you the "right" to kill me in order to prevent me from doing so. There is no "right" to kill, only instances where homicide is "justified" by law, and then only to protect ones right to life. You may not use lethal force to protect any lesser right according to law.
Are you aware that in several of the most conservative, pro-gun states, you can shoot someone dead if they so much as step on your property?

reply from: Shiprahagain

You can shoot someone is they trepass and you think they're going to rob/rape/kill you. You can shoot an eight year old out girl scouting. I may point out that in Texas, counties with the highest rates of gun ownership have the lowest rates of gun deaths -- in other words, ppl are less likely to attempt rape and murder when they know the law is preventing innocent ppl from protecting themselves.
Besides, you're still dodging earlier points. Should one conjoined twin have the right to kill another? Should blacks not be considered human since the founding fathers didn't consider them such?

reply from: cali1981

At some point you are going to have to stop chasing your tail, and it may as well be now. You have conceded that we have a right to life, yet you have made the statement no less than three times that this right does not come from the amendment I mentioned, and you still have not backed this up using any sort of fact or logic. Why do we as legal persons have the right to not be unjustifiably killed? Where does that right come from? You say it does not come from the amendment I mentioned. Where, then, do you imagine it comes from? Defend your statement.
When you say that the unborn "are not legal persons," do you mean that we do not give an unborn child all the rights of a person? If that is what you mean, then I have no earthly idea why you would bring this up, because nobody is disputing it. I, personally, am well aware that an unborn child does not currently have all of the rights that I do. What I - and other pro-lifers - argue is that and unborn child should be given the rights of a person, because it objectively and scientifically is a person.
You cannot seriously believe that whether or not someone is a person is determined by the rights that a government grants him or her. As I have proven time and time again (and as you have never refuted), whether or not someone is a person is an objective, verifiable truth, and is not something that can change - at all, least of all because of the whim of a government. Throughout history, there have been many classes of human beings - including racial, ethnic, and gender-related - that governments including ours have not afforded all of the rights of a person. Those groups of human beings may not have been "legal" persons, but they WERE "persons." Do you understand the difference?
This is another statement that you have repeatedly made but refuse to defend. BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you say that killing would be justified in this case? What are you appealing to in the Constitution and/or in moral judgment, logic, or precedent that leads you to this conclusion? It is time to bite the bullet and start defending the statements that you make using logic and facts.
You are either deliberately glossing over my posts without even reading them, or you are intentionally lying about what I said in order to make it easier for you to argue with. Not once did I tell you that the unborn are persons because I say so. I arrived at that conclusion through the use of facts and logic - more specifically through the DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PERSON." In fact, I even went a step back and proved that that process was factual - rather than the result of opinion - by citing the definitions of the words "fact" and "opinion."
You, on the other hand, have completely ignored all of my factual arguments and refused to try to discredit them. You continue to say that whether or not someone is a person is a matter of opinion or belief when I have indisputably proved otherwise. This might be somewhat excusable if you had tried to defend your statement through a process of counter-logic...but you didn't do that. Once again, it is time to stop the evasion and step up to the plate and defend your position.
You continually make the statement that it is a matter of belief/opinion whether someone is a person or not. Or, to put it another way, you claim that we cannot objectively know whether someone is a person or not. Defend this claim using logic and facts, in the same way that I used logic and facts to defend the opposite statement. Or use logic and facts to discredit my argument - it doesn't matter which. But whichever one you choose, STOP MAKING STATEMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT DEFEND!
First of all, you are ignoring the context of my mentioning this. I did not intend to make a comprehensive list of what defines a human being (although I could certainly get into a detailed discussion of that), but only brought up the DNA example to show that there are ways of objectively discovering whether someone is a person (e.g., to discredit your statement that it's "only a matter of opinion").
By the way, even though I just said that this was really off-topic of you to mention, I can't resist pointing out how ridiculous it is. Do you realize what the term "unique" means? Although I love to post dictionary definitions, I will try giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you do know the meaning of the word and were just trying to be annoying with your examples. A severed limb has the same DNA as the person it came from - thus, not unique! Cancer cells also have the same DNA as the person they come from - thus, not unique! An unborn child has different DNA from his/her mother - but I guess you would know that if you allowed yourself to think logically, since you know that you have different DNA from your mother, and that since one's DNA does not change, you must also have had different DNA from her before you were born.
The "twins" issue, obviously, can be addressed through another factual, observable characteristic of persons - that they have bodies that are not part of others' bodies. Of course, I'm sure you could think of plenty of other ways to factually verify that an organism is or is not a human being. You don't want to, because that would then mean that it's not a matter of opinion whether someone is or isn't (and I know you desperately want to believe that) - but you could.
No one said anything about the founding fathers. Maybe they thought that life began at conception, maybe they didn't. What they thought is immaterial when we want to know the objective, scientific, factually verifiable truth. Given the fact that many of the founding fathers were slave owners, it's clear that they didn't consider blacks to be human beings either - at least, they didn't treat them as such. Did that mean that blacks were actually not persons? What the founding fathers thought about certain groups of people has no impact on the scientific, objective truth about who is a human being and who is not.
Also, it is possible for things to be legal that are in conflict with the constitution. It's happened a whole bunch of times. Things have been ruled to be unconstitutional and then they have been revoked. Just because something is or was legal at a given point in time, does not mean that it is/was consitutional.
You did not address this point. I'm very interested to know how you respond to knowing that even some pro-choicers are acknowledging that it is dishonest to ignore the fact (not opinion) that it is a person that abortion is killing.
Guess what? Your little made-up definition there fits a whole bunch of other situations - including the way in which every law in our country comes into existence. Lawmakers all have their own personal views about how the country would best be run. Those views are never shared by everyone. Yet every vote they make is determined by those views, and every law that passes because of their votes or their signature "imposes their views" on those who don't agree. Some activities infringe on the rights of others, and when people want to engage in those things, it is right for the government to impose its views on them. People like you who go around saying and legislating that the lives of children are disposable, are imposing your views on those children, as well as on all of us who think differently. As long as there is disagreement about an issue of politics, there will be one group imposing its views on another group - because that's the only way policies and laws are made. One group's views - the majority - win out and get imposed on everyone. Thus, there is nothing inherently bad about imposing one's views on others - it is necessary and happens all the time.
Anyway, that was just another sidetrack remark by you - you completely ignored my point in that above paragraph, which is that pro-lifers and laws against abortion don't say that a woman has to have a child, but only that she shouldn't be able to kill a child that she already has. Neither the government nor pro-lifers have anything to do with whether children come into existence - that's all about the actions of the two people involved in the pregnancy. Whether or not to have children is certainly an individual decision that should not be legislated upon by the government.It's just that killing a child that you already have does not fall into that category.
Oh no, I'm not being dense. You didn't say that her body was seized by the rapist. Having granted for a moment your ridiculous claim that creation of an innocent child is somehow a "seizure" of a woman's body, I said that neither the government nor any third party (including anti-abortion people) is ever involved in such a seizure. You then responded by saying "If she was raped, than yes." What was I supposed to conclude from that, since I never mentioned the rapist in my paragraph? Come now, that one was your fault for not being clear that you were introducing a new topic.
You did not respond to this. I want to hear what you meant by "then yes" in THIS case - hopefully it's as interesting as the other one.
What's not the least bit necessary for her? That her child gestate within her?
Well, that seems patently obvious. Of course it is not necessary for a mother that her child continue to live. It's not necessary for me that I feed my daughter, either. However, it is necessary for her to live that she be provided with food, and she is just as much a human being I am. Therefore, she should be given the basic requirements of life that EVERY HUMAN BEING needs to live, even if that makes life a little harder for me (or for her adoptive parents/the government were I to give her up). Gestation in the same vein is an absolutely basic requirement for EVERY HUMAN BEING to live...including the woman who is pregnant. She also gestated at one point in her life, and could not have survived without that experience. You don't have a logical point here.
Also, you conveniently ignored the main point of this paragraph, which was to refute your nonsensical implication that something can't be legal unless it's explicitly detailed in the Constitution. You should acknowledge that nearly all the laws in place in this country are extrapolations of very general concepts from this short document.
Says who? You? Cite evidence supporting this statement. What basis do you have for calling this a violation of rights? Since you are obviously very inexperienced at backing up your statements (and since you have a lot of work to do at backing up all the preceding baseless statements you've made in this thread), I'll give you some hints for what "evidence" could include: dictionary definitions, legal concepts, physical observations, historical events. And that's only a sampling.
Your use of this word makes no sense to me. I read every definition of it and I don't see how you are trying to use it here. Please specify which definition of "default" you are using and how that definition applies here. I'll even quote the complete definitions of it to help you out:
Main Entry: de·fault
Pronunciation: di-'folt, dE-; 'dE-"folt
Function: noun
1 : failure to do something required by duty or law : NEGLECT
2 archaic : FAULT
3 : a failure to pay financial debts
4 a : failure to appear at the required time in a legal proceeding b : failure to compete in or to finish an appointed contest <lost the game by default>
5 a : a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative <remained the club's president by default> b : a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user
- in default of : in the absence of

reply from: cali1981

Spot-on, CP...and exactly the point I've been trying to hammer home to NP. Well said.
If I could choose any words to be screened onto a T-shirt and wear every day in front of pro-choicers, it would be those:
"Person" is not a subjective term

reply from: cali1981

Another great point. There are ways other than DNA to establish that twins are separate people, but that is a non-issue with regard to abortion.

reply from: cali1981

Oh, please do throw your two cents in! I'm so happy that you are. I certainly don't have every last bit of information right at my fingertips to support every issue that the pro-life side could be confronted with, and you've contributed some excellent, concrete information to the debate. I really admire your thoughtful posts and your education on this issue.

reply from: cali1981

That's fantastic. Kudos to you for being so informed. I am currently working on organizing a database of pro-life resources from which I can quickly and efficiently quote just as you do. I'm looking forward to developing it more.
Understood...but those "conclusions and opinions" are of incredibly high quality, and that matters so much more than the quantity or percentage of your total posts. Everything you say is well-thought-out and supported, which is more than can be said for some of the mountains of BS that are spouted here (like "we have a right to life but it doesn't come from the Constitution!"..."we can't prove whether someone is a person or not!"..."cancer and severed limbs have their own unique DNA!"...and on and on and on).
Absolutely. If there is some kind of heaven after this life, you can bet that those folks will be in for a momentous reward.
Thank you. Just like you, I feel that any difference I make is really quite minimal, but if we all join together to do our small part hopefully that is what will really make the difference.

reply from: NewPoster1

I'll make this simple...
Upon searching dictionary.com for the definition of "person", I found...
Upon searching dictionary.com for the definition of "child", I found...
Noticeably lacking, was any mention of "zygote" or "embryo".
Once again, I reiterate, the notion that, "what exists at conception is a person", is merely your opinion, not fact.

reply from: NewPoster1

I noticed we're also lacking further response from Newposter.................
There's nothing else to say, nothing has changed. My position has been simply that, "what's present at conception is a person", is an opinion, not a fact.
The fact that different dictioniaries give conflicting definitions only further proves my point.

reply from: cali1981

Upon searching dictionary.com for the definition of "child", I found...
Noticeably lacking, was any mention of "zygote" or "embryo".
Once again, I reiterate, the notion that, "what exists at conception is a person", is merely your opinion, not fact.
LOL This is too funny. First of all, when searching dictionary.com for the word "child," it turns up TONS of results from many DIFFERENT dictionaries...MANY more than the ones you listed.
Some of the ones you failed to list include:
"a son or daughter"
"an unborn infant"
"an offspring"
"a son or daughter of any age"
"an unborn or recently born person"
ALL of these apply to unborn children of ANY age!
Oh, we're well aware that that is your position. What we're not aware of is how you back up that position. I take the exact opposite position, and have explained many times how it can be backed up. I will explain it yet again for you, NP, this time in the most concise format that I am aware of...a list of premises and a conclusion.
Premise 1: A fact is something presented as having objective reality. [dictionary]
Premise 2: Objective reality consists of phenomena that are within the realm of sensible experience, that are independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. [dictionary]
Premise 3: A person is a human being. [dictionary]
Premise 4: There are ways of verifying within the realm of the senses, perceptible by all observers, whether or not something/someone is a human being. [example: DNA testing] In other words, if a number of different people employed these methods of verification, all would come up with the same answer.
Conclusion: Whether or not something is a person is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
You repeatedly state that you have come to the opposite conclusion. SHOW US HOW. Either dispute the truth of one or more of my premises above, or show the premises that YOU used to come to your conclusion.
Excuse me, what were the "conflicting" definitions? Dictionaries DO NOT CONTRADICT each other! Each dictionary, and each definition WITHIN each dictionary, merely ADDS to the accepted understandings and usages of a word. They DO NOT contradict each other! If they did, we could not believe ANY of them!
Please, do specify for us which definitions of human being or child "conflicted" with each other!
I am amazed at how obstinate you are being. I proved by a logical process, several times, that it is not a matter of opinion whether someone is a person or not. (I would be happy to re-post and re-post and re-post that logical argument if I thought that saying it more times would make you read and respond to it. Maybe I will after I make this post, although I am certain that your capability to ignore even that will surpass my wildest dreams.) You never debunked my proof nor presented any premises leading to the opposite conclusion (that it is a matter of opinion); in fact, you ignored almost everything I said and merely responded to a few of my side points with one-liners that you refused to back up. Unless you are willing to engage in a legitimate debate, you should not be here.
I will again state my arguments that you refuse to debate as well as your statements that you refuse to back up. I will keep stating them until you respond.

reply from: cali1981

Since NP just ignored a whole slew of questions and refutations in this incredibly long post of mine, I think I'll re-post it and highlight the sections that are awaiting response. May as well give her the benefit of the doubt, eh? Perhaps she didn't understand what she was supposed to respond to. Well, we'll make that clear in no uncertain terms.
At some point you are going to have to stop chasing your tail, and it may as well be now. You have conceded that we have a right to life, yet you have made the statement no less than three times that this right does not come from the amendment I mentioned, and you still have not backed this up using any sort of fact or logic. Why do we as legal persons have the right to not be unjustifiably killed? Where does that right come from? You say it does not come from the amendment I mentioned. Where, then, do you imagine it comes from? Defend your statement.
When you say that the unborn "are not legal persons," do you mean that we do not give an unborn child all the rights of a person? If that is what you mean, then I have no earthly idea why you would bring this up, because nobody is disputing it. I, personally, am well aware that an unborn child does not currently have all of the rights that I do. What I - and other pro-lifers - argue is that and unborn child should be given the rights of a person, because it objectively and scientifically is a person.
You cannot seriously believe that whether or not someone is a person is determined by the rights that a government grants him or her. As I have proven time and time again (and as you have never refuted), whether or not someone is a person is an objective, verifiable truth, and is not something that can change - at all, least of all because of the whim of a government. Throughout history, there have been many classes of human beings - including racial, ethnic, and gender-related - that governments including ours have not afforded all of the rights of a person. Those groups of human beings may not have been "legal" persons, but they WERE "persons." Do you understand the difference?
This is another statement that you have repeatedly made but refuse to defend. BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you say that killing would be justified in this case? What are you appealing to in the Constitution and/or in moral judgment, logic, or precedent that leads you to this conclusion? It is time to bite the bullet and start defending the statements that you make using logic and facts.
You are either deliberately glossing over my posts without even reading them, or you are intentionally lying about what I said in order to make it easier for you to argue with. Not once did I tell you that the unborn are persons because I say so. I arrived at that conclusion through the use of facts and logic - more specifically through the DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PERSON." In fact, I even went a step back and proved that that process was factual - rather than the result of opinion - by citing the definitions of the words "fact" and "opinion."
You, on the other hand, have completely ignored all of my factual arguments and refused to try to discredit them. You continue to say that whether or not someone is a person is a matter of opinion or belief when I have indisputably proved otherwise. This might be somewhat excusable if you had tried to defend your statement through a process of counter-logic...but you didn't do that. Once again, it is time to stop the evasion and step up to the plate and defend your position.
You continually make the statement that it is a matter of belief/opinion whether someone is a person or not. Or, to put it another way, you claim that we cannot objectively know whether someone is a person or not. Defend this claim using logic and facts, in the same way that I used logic and facts to defend the opposite statement. Or use logic and facts to discredit my argument - it doesn't matter which. But whichever one you choose, STOP MAKING STATEMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT DEFEND!
First of all, you are ignoring the context of my mentioning this. I did not intend to make a comprehensive list of what defines a human being (although I could certainly get into a detailed discussion of that), but only brought up the DNA example to show that there are ways of objectively discovering whether someone is a person (e.g., to discredit your statement that it's "only a matter of opinion").
By the way, even though I just said that this was really off-topic of you to mention, I can't resist pointing out how ridiculous it is. Do you realize what the term "unique" means? Although I love to post dictionary definitions, I will try giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you do know the meaning of the word and were just trying to be annoying with your examples. A severed limb has the same DNA as the person it came from - thus, not unique! Cancer cells also have the same DNA as the person they come from - thus, not unique! An unborn child has different DNA from his/her mother - but I guess you would know that if you allowed yourself to think logically, since you know that you have different DNA from your mother, and that since one's DNA does not change, you must also have had different DNA from her before you were born.
The "twins" issue, obviously, can be addressed through another factual, observable characteristic of persons - that they have bodies that are not part of others' bodies. Of course, I'm sure you could think of plenty of other ways to factually verify that an organism is or is not a human being. You don't want to, because that would then mean that it's not a matter of opinion whether someone is or isn't (and I know you desperately want to believe that) - but you could.
No one said anything about the founding fathers. Maybe they thought that life began at conception, maybe they didn't. What they thought is immaterial when we want to know the objective, scientific, factually verifiable truth. Given the fact that many of the founding fathers were slave owners, it's clear that they didn't consider blacks to be human beings either - at least, they didn't treat them as such. Did that mean that blacks were actually not persons? What the founding fathers thought about certain groups of people has no impact on the scientific, objective truth about who is a human being and who is not.
Also, it is possible for things to be legal that are in conflict with the constitution. It's happened a whole bunch of times. Things have been ruled to be unconstitutional and then they have been revoked. Just because something is or was legal at a given point in time, does not mean that it is/was consitutional.
You did not address this point. I'm very interested to know how you respond to knowing that even some pro-choicers are acknowledging that it is dishonest to ignore the fact (not opinion) that it is a person that abortion is killing.
Guess what? Your little made-up definition there fits a whole bunch of other situations - including the way in which every law in our country comes into existence. Lawmakers all have their own personal views about how the country would best be run. Those views are never shared by everyone. Yet every vote they make is determined by those views, and every law that passes because of their votes or their signature "imposes their views" on those who don't agree. Some activities infringe on the rights of others, and when people want to engage in those things, it is right for the government to impose its views on them. People like you who go around saying and legislating that the lives of children are disposable, are imposing your views on those children, as well as on all of us who think differently. As long as there is disagreement about an issue of politics, there will be one group imposing its views on another group - because that's the only way policies and laws are made. One group's views - the majority - win out and get imposed on everyone. Thus, there is nothing inherently bad about imposing one's views on others - it is necessary and happens all the time.
Anyway, that was just another sidetrack remark by you - you completely ignored my point in that above paragraph, which is that pro-lifers and laws against abortion don't say that a woman has to have a child, but only that she shouldn't be able to kill a child that she already has. Neither the government nor pro-lifers have anything to do with whether children come into existence - that's all about the actions of the two people involved in the pregnancy. Whether or not to have children is certainly an individual decision that should not be legislated upon by the government. It's just that killing a child that you already have does not fall into that category.
Oh no, I'm not being dense. You didn't say that her body was seized by the rapist. Having granted for a moment your ridiculous claim that creation of an innocent child is somehow a "seizure" of a woman's body, I said that neither the government nor any third party (including anti-abortion people) is ever involved in such a seizure. You then responded by saying "If she was raped, than yes." What was I supposed to conclude from that, since I never mentioned the rapist in my paragraph? Come now, that one was your fault for not being clear that you were introducing a new topic.
You did not respond to this. I want to hear what you meant by "then yes" in THIS case - hopefully it's as interesting as the other one.
What's not the least bit necessary for her? That her child gestate within her?
Well, that seems patently obvious. Of course it is not necessary for a mother that her child continue to live. It's not necessary for me that I feed my daughter, either. However, it is necessary for her to live that she be provided with food, and she is just as much a human being I am. Therefore, she should be given the basic requirements of life that EVERY HUMAN BEING needs to live, even if that makes life a little harder for me (or for her adoptive parents/the government were I to give her up). Gestation in the same vein is an absolutely basic requirement for EVERY HUMAN BEING to live...including the woman who is pregnant. She also gestated at one point in her life, and could not have survived without that experience. You don't have a logical point here.
Also, you conveniently ignored the main point of this paragraph, which was to refute your nonsensical implication that something can't be legal unless it's explicitly detailed in the Constitution. You should acknowledge that nearly all the laws in place in this country are extrapolations of very general concepts from this short document.
Says who? You? Cite evidence supporting this statement. What basis do you have for calling this a violation of rights? Since you are obviously very inexperienced at backing up your statements (and since you have a lot of work to do at backing up all the preceding baseless statements you've made in this thread), I'll give you some hints for what "evidence" could include: dictionary definitions, legal concepts, physical observations, historical events. And that's only a sampling.
Your use of this word makes no sense to me. I read every definition of it and I don't see how you are trying to use it here. Please specify which definition of "default" you are using and how that definition applies here. I'll even quote the complete definitions of it to help you out:
Main Entry: de·fault
Pronunciation: di-'folt, dE-; 'dE-"folt
Function: noun
1 : failure to do something required by duty or law : NEGLECT
2 archaic : FAULT
3 : a failure to pay financial debts
4 a : failure to appear at the required time in a legal proceeding b : failure to compete in or to finish an appointed contest <lost the game by default>
5 a : a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative <remained the club's president by default> b : a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user
- in default of : in the absence of

reply from: bradensmommy

I noticed we're also lacking further response from Newposter.................
There's nothing else to say, nothing has changed. My position has been simply that, "what's present at conception is a person", is an opinion, not a fact.
The fact that different dictioniaries give conflicting definitions only further proves my point.
So what exactly is present at conception...a flower? a dog? a monkey?
So if I say to you that you aren't a person that would be an opinion. I'm quite confused. I have done my studies and my research and clearly that when a sperm meets the egg and fertilizes it it doesn't become anything but a forming baby with a unique DNA. Wow, so many things you learn when you go to school!

reply from: yoda

Dictionaries don't give "conflicting" definitions. They each list those that their surveys have found to be used sufficiently to justify inclusion. Have you ever seen an "IS NOT" definition in ANY dictionary, anywhere?
And all it takes is ONE inclusion in any reputable dictionary to establish a valid usage.

reply from: yoda

NP seems to be a "hit and run" poster, who will not debate his/her statements when pinned down.

reply from: bradensmommy

I read an older dictionary back in the 80's and there was a definition of the N word that defines it as a black person.
It shows that the dictionary changes with the eras but I don't think a definition of the word baby or human will ever change unless of course we suddenly turn into gorillas.
A fun little joke:
Did you know that the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?

reply from: cali1981

Boy, you said it. I write volumes defending my positions logically...and she responds with one or two baseless statements, ignores almost everything I say, and simply repeats those two steps when cornered. We should all be so lucky as to not be required to back up the statements that we make, eh? I think Tam once referred to this situation as a "Get Out of Debate Free Card."
I like that phrase.

reply from: yoda

As well you should, since probabykilling advocates do not do well with complicated issues.
A PBK advocate says "I can find plenty of other definitions for "person" and "child", and I know that some dictionaries have more than others. So I can just look around and find one that doesn't have one of those troublesome definitons that I dislike so much, quote it, and claim that closes the book on the subject. Then I can claim confusion and consternation when anyone has the nerve to point out that MY dictionary is not the ultimate authority in the whole world."
In other words, make a stupid statement and then feign such stupidity that no one can explain it to you.

reply from: cali1981

Wow, that's a really good summary of what she did!

reply from: cali1981

Let's phrase that in the form of a question, and you try to answer it........
What's present at conception? Is it human? Is it part of the mother, or is it a distinct entity? By jove, I think these questions can be answered with facts, scientific facts that are indisputable! The "opinion" involved in this discussion is whether or not unborn persons deserve to be protected. It may be your opinion that it is not wrong to kill an innocent human being at some arbitrary stage of physical development, but it is indisputable fact that no distinct individual that begins its existance as anything other than a human being can ever become a human being. It is also indisputable fact that every human being, at any and every stage of physical development, is a "person" by definition.
The fact that more than one definition exists does not support your denials. Only one definition must fit. If every known definition had to apply to a word in order for the definitions to be valid, words would not have separate definitions, they would only need one definition that includes every qualification.
At any rate, abortion is a medical procedure, is it not? I direct you to the proper definition for this context, in a medical dictionary. Once more:
per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
3. The living body of a human.
4. Physique and general appearance.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
So which do you deny "what's present at conception" is? "Living" or "human?"
Fantastic post, CP. Bravo. I wish I could frame it.

reply from: Tam

reminds me of "the same child" thing with sigma. LOL

reply from: Tam

not a chance, not until i chime in with my agreement as well. it was nicely done, cp. if you're humble or not used to praise, give the "credit" to the English language.

reply from: cali1981

Thanks to everyone for their constructive comments on this thread. No thanks, of course, to those folks who repeatedly make statements that were repeatedly shot down and that they repeatedly refuse to defend with logic/facts.

reply from: cali1981

BUMP
Just wanted to point out that NP has failed to step up and defend her claims as I requested.
I'm sure that no one is surprised.

reply from: faithman

I noticed we're also lacking further response from Newposter.................
There's nothing else to say, nothing has changed. My position has been simply that, "what's present at conception is a person", is an opinion, not a fact.
The fact that different dictioniaries give conflicting definitions only further proves my point.
If left alone, and not killed, the "product of conception" will turn into a person. Even if you want to argue that preborns are not persons, or we can't really know when they develope into persons, we can say with assurance that they are future persons. The contitution protects future persons in the very first paragraph, as all you must do is count 40 words down and find the word posterity. Posterity means future generations/ future persons. So the future blessing of their personhood is secured by the constitution.

reply from: cali1981

I understand the point you were trying to make here, faithman, but there is no such thing as a "future" person who currently exists. "Posterity" might refer to future offspring who do not yet exist, but that does not apply to the preborn.
However, this is a good thing to point out - the Constitution does cover "future persons," even though the preborn are not included under this category.

reply from: faithman

I understand the point you were trying to make here, faithman, but there is no such thing as a "future" person who currently exists. "Posterity" might refer to future offspring who do not yet exist, but that does not apply to the preborn.
However, this is a good thing to point out - the Constitution does cover "future persons," even though the preborn are not included under this category.
What makes them not includded? Just because you say? what is the future for them, if not legal personhood? If they will become a person in the future then by all deffinitions they are future persons. And if they currenly exist right now, then they are right now persons and deserve our protection. Either way, the baby killers lose this one.

reply from: cali1981

The baby killers DO lose this one. You are right. And it's because the unborn ARE persons, not "future persons." Thus, they are not included in "posterity" - not "because I say," but because posterity is defined as "future generations," and they are part of a generation that already exists.
It doesn't really make sense to talk about them as "becoming persons in the future" because it's not possible for someone to "become" a person if they are not one already. But you as an anti-babykilling advocate know that, and don't try to pretend that it's not the case.

reply from: faithman

wasn't the case I was trying to make. The point is that even if you want to say a preborn is not a person, within a very few months they will be. The constitution protects them either way. The whole issue of RvW, was personhood. The court remained focussed on the 14th amendment, and ignored the 40th word of the preamble. The constitution is not ambiguos as to the rights of the womb child.

reply from: cali1981

Still waiting for NP to step up and defend her claims as I requested. I know that she has been posting elsewhere on the forum, so there should be no reason why she cannot respond to this thread.

reply from: yoda

NP seems to be forever avoiding you, cali.

reply from: cali1981

Naw, really? I hadn't noticed. :-p
I definitely think we should point this out as much as possible. She's not here as often as some people, but she's here enough that she should notice if we keep commenting on her lack of response.

reply from: Tam

Prolifers do not claim that the baby has the right to kill it's mother, whereas proaborts do say that the mother has the right to kill the baby.
BIG difference.
Also, prolifers don't pretend the mother doesn't exist, isn't human, isn't alive, or isn't a person with the right to live. ALL of those things are done by prochoicers in an effort to pretend the unborn child is NOT the same child as the born child. The fact that every single born child IS the same child as s/he was in the womb doesn't seem to penetrate.
hahaha...it's the famous "same child" debate; this is the post that started it all.

reply from: terry

This is a great example of how a debate between two pro-life posters can involve a strong disagreement without it being an argument. Not that either of these posters is perfect--I have seen examples of personal attacks and name calling by each of them and by pretty much every single poster on the forum, it seems! But if we could all just try to be less like that, and more like this:

reply from: Tam

awwwwwww
i miss holopaw.
and he makes a good point, about not pressing on endlessly in arguments with other pro-lifers. i am glad to be reminded of that point!

reply from: Banned Member

Tam, RE: Your signature line;
So.. this is the only reason truly liberated women appose abortion.. because they reject some imagined "male world view" on the subject of violence?
Are there no women who condone violence? How about the woman who murdered my niece and all her future female prison mates?
It's easier to hate and cast blame when you can focus your attentions on a defined group though isn't it?

reply from: B0zo

This is a troubling statement, especially since it comes from a pro-life organization.
The "male world view", RELUCTANTLY accepts that SOMETIMES violence is necessary to protect the weaker, like children and WOMEN.
The police and the armed forces have to use violence sometimes or you wouldn't be able to make that post in safety.
Violence IS sometimes a legitimate solution to conflict, but the same person who believes that can also believe and assert that abortion is a violence that is NOT a legitimate solution to conflict.
And lest those who would pin violence on all men because of the small minority of men who are unjustly violent forget--all violent men had MOTHERS. Is it fair to ask what is wrong with women that they could raise men who would be violent?
It's sad to see such a sexist, bigoted, and unfair statement from an organization on the side of such a good cause.

reply from: Tam

Ok. First of all, it's the SITUATION that is sexist, bigoted, and unfair--NOT the organization with the guts to point that out.
Second of all, there's already a whole thread about this, I think it's called Pro-Life Feminism or something, that I started months ago. Why don't I bump that one and you can repost your arguments there (although LN and I have already been down this road, if I recall).


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics