ronbo
This has been done. Lots of times. By people with far better rhetorical style than you.
We’ve heard it before.
Don’t expect, “Wow! What a novel argument! I’ve never thought of it that way before!”
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Your’e right. It is better to let the fetus die in the abortion than have a preemie to deal with.:wally
You cannot stop abortions. Even when they were illegal, they occured. Even if you pass new laws they will occur.
Accept the fact that abortions will occur. Accept the fact that a woman has the right and ability to terminate her pregnancy in spite of your “moral” objections.
Give women alternatives that are better than abortion. That is the only way to minimize the number of abortions.
Well… yes.
I could get hit in the head with a sledgehammer and compose a better pro-choice argument than anything you’ve put forth in this thread.
I just find it humourous that since I’m pointing out that your argument is goofy, you’re assuming I’m pro-life.
Do all us serious pro-choicers a favour and switch sides. Please.
YAAAAY my thread reached three pages, I reached 100 posts, and I leared how to make the :wally smiley.
Okay, now to get back on track. Ronbo nice of you to join us. Before you subject us to any more metaphors or insult any more of my readers, I have a request. This post is about compromise. I don’t care whether abortion is right or wrong, legal or outlawed, or even if you think the world is flat. What I want, is for you to offer up something to make the pro-lifers just a little bit happier than they were yesterday. In exchange, they will give up something to make you just a little happier than you were yesterday.
Tell me Mr Ronbo what are you willing to give up?
Brian:
I haven’t found anything especially erudite about your posts so far. You seem to be no better at making valid points than you are at bashing.
However, the sledgehammer idea seems like a good one. Do us all a favor and try it. Please. 
I know I’m crazy trying to reach dogmatists and people that think bashing shows intelligence, but I’m an optimist. I would much prefer to have a discussion than a battle of putdowns.
We can either look for common grounds or at least understanding or alienate as many people as possible…even those on the same side.
If you are Pro-Choice, is there a month that you feel abortions should not be allowed?
7? 8? 8 1/2? 9?
Please explain your thinking.
Please note that I did not start the insults. I even requested an intelligent discussion in my first post.
I offered that abortions stop and induced labors begin at a certain time. There is a difference between killing a fetus, and allowing it to die if it is not viable outside the mother.
emacknight, I’m still waiting for someone to respond intelligently to my first post. Why don’t you start.
My thinking is that the choice is best left to doctors and their patients rather than legislators, and that an ethical OB/GYN is in a better position to explain options for a pregnancy that is into its third trimester. I doubt that an ethical doctor is going to terminate an eight-month pregnancy for purely elective reasons, but I’m uncomfortable with putting restrictions on medical matters.
And taking shots at you is fun, so I’ll save the serious debating for serious posters.
No, I have to disagree with inducing before the lungs are viable. To be honest I actually find the thought of sucking the fetus out through a tube less disturbing. The problem is that with our current medical technology, you KNOW absolutely that the fetus is not going to survive. Yes, the end result is that the fetus dies, just like an abortion, but now you’re really just doing it in a ridiculously inefficient manner. Inefficient probably isn’t the best word but I’m and engineer and I’m only allotted a small number of words. It also seems a bit inhumane. In fact you wouldn’t do this to a dog.
Now, I think you’re a witch. We all know witches don’t burn, so we’ll light you on fire. If you don’t burn, we’ll know you’re a not a witch. I love that logic. Remember, only intelligent discussion here, and if you’re not Hitler, you’ll agree with me.
Bryan
Good response.
I can see no compromise on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. However, there is a time when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
Do you see a difference between “killing” the fetus as part of the abortion versus “allowing” it to die if it cannot survive on its own?
Just had to put in a cut, didn’t you?
I will not engage you in a battle of wits. I will not fight an unarmed man.
Something else that pro-choice people should consider, is that this “right to choose” and Roe vs Wade only lasts until a Rebuplican nominates a new Supreme Court Justice who convinces 4 others that the definition of murder should extend to the un-born. Or something to that extent.
Now, if you’ll excuse me I need to go read Roe vs Wade, figure out who’s sitting on the Supreme Court, and try to guess when the next judge gets nominated.
Point is, right now its a pro-choice environment (at least in Canada), but that’s far from guaranteed.
Well, that fact that both emack and I hold ronbo in contempt suggest that compromise on some aspects of abortion are possible, at least.
Well, I’ll happily engage you in a battle of wits, but to be fair, I’ll only use half of mine.
I can agree that it is not necessary to induce labor before the fetus is likely to survive and have a healthy life. Of course that date cannot be determined. That is a part of this thread.
Induction of labor might make Pro-Choice more palatable to the fence sitters. Of course it would not sway the devout Anti-Abortionists. This thread is about a possible compromise.
I don’t have a cite, but it seems to me that the medically “preferred” abortion method is actually the abortion pill (labor induction). We don’t have that option yet because of government regulation and the pharmaceutical companies are afraid of the backlash. I do remember hearing of making morning after pills available over-the-counter.
Agree about the intelligent discussion, or your abortion position? 
Joking, I know what you mean.
emacknight, I do not have a problem with intelligent people like you.
Is it that you don’t know how to engage in an intelligent discussion?
Even your “half-witted” response is too little too late.
I’m suspecting that if any pro Roe vs Wade justice retires during Bush’s term, the democrats will filibuster the nomination until the cows come home. Look at how much resistance they put up against Estrada, and that was just for the DC appeals court.
Thanks Blalron. On sober second thought, I’ve realized that I asked the original post wrong, so if anyone is left, try this variation:
Let’s start from the assumption that right now, its a pro-choice environment. If you want, we can play in Canada were abortions are paid for by the government.
If you’re pro-life, and your stance is no abortion ever*, is there anything you are willing to compromise to make the environment less pro-choise? Here’s your challenge though. It was said that compromise means allowing abortions, and that would make you pro-choice. But the problem is that abortions are happening, so you can be as pro-life as you want, its still going to happen. Are there any parts of your debate that you’re willing to let slide in order to get less abortions?
If you’re pro-choice, how confident are you that Roe v Wade will hold? If you felt this was slipping, are there any compromises that you’d make to ensure abortions remain legal and available?
*let’s stay away from “medically necessary” for now.
I meant to say, if Bush tries to appoint a pro-life justice the democrats will fight it tooth and claw with filibusters, to hold on to the last vestiges of power republicans don’t have over our government.
Even assuming Roe vs Wade were overturned tomorrow, the issue would still belong to the states to decide whether to allow the practice. I live in a liberal “blue” state (primarily democrat), so it will probably remain legal over where I am.
As for the need to compromise, no I’m not going to play that game. Roe vs Wade allows for abortions up until the point of viability. If the pro-lifers aren’t even willing to allow abortions before the fetus can survive outside the mothers body, I don’t see how compromise can be achieved.
People today are far too focused on personal morality. It all seems to be about what THEY feel to be right or wrong. They can not grasp the old fashioned, and indeed, correct idea that there is an absolute moral right and an absolute moral wrong. Whether or not you believe stealing from a big, faceless corporation is right or wrong, the fact stands that you stole something, and that is always wrong. (Albeit, there are some mitigating circumstances to the sin of theft, i.e. Jean Valjean, etc.)
Another crime that is always wrong is murder. There are no mitigating circumstances for this one, though. If you steal a loaf of bread, society wails at your lack of ethics, but if you show them it was to feed your starving family, then your punishment is less severe.
When you murder someone, there is no circumstance that can justify what you did. [And yes, there is a difference between a murder and a killing. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.]
So let’s take the idea of abortion. It seems all are agreed that the zygote is indeed living. And, contrary to what Dr. Deth thinks in an earlier post, a zygote can not be compared to one’s tonsils, cancer, or sperm. A zygote is a human in development.
Cancer can be fatal. Your tonsils have to be removed if they become swollen and enlarged. What has the zygote done to deserve elimination? Does the mother not wish to go through the inconvenience of pregnancy? In the case of rape, what kind of cruel revenge is it to the rapist that the mother should kill his seed? Its a logical fallacy, “I was raped, so I should kill the child.”
Abortion is murder. Unlike other surgeries where the premise is to promote good health, abortion ends a life and damages the mother emotionally and physically, permanently.
What all abortionists and pro-abortioners need to realize is that abortion stops a heartbeat.
**And it’s been my experience that those who write clumsy metaphors that they are obviously enamored with tend to blame the reader when the shortcomings of their post are brought up.
This is a very dramatic false dilemma. There are already countless examples of what the law will not permit you to do with your body. Are all those restrictions wrong? Do you support overthrowing these laws because any that share this characteristic are by definition immoral?
Or is using this particular yardstick illogical–i.e., this unborn entity is a living human, but any rights this blameless human might have are superseded by another human’s right?
How can the right to “sovereignty” over one’s body be any more fundamental than the right to live? All rights are illusions if there is not a right to live that supports them. How can any right be inviolable if there it is not supported by a inviolable right to live (to the extent any right can be inviolable)?