I note you didn’t reply to the part where your ethos appears to be random and inconsistent.
Yeah, because I write wall of texts to amuse myself, and not in response to others writing walls of text.
Ah, the old “But Jimmy did it first!” defense. A classic.
You quoting the Bible is freaking hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
I haven’t made such a claim myself, but no matter. Now I’m curious why, if the abortion laws in the U.S. are so at odds with the people and if they care enough about the subject to act on it why abortion hasn’t been a major election issue, as gay marriage was in 2004?
The emphasized part is important. It’s okay that many (possibly most) Americans say they want tighter abortion restrictions, but if they don’t take action to demand it, up to and including pressuring for a constitutional amendment, I’d have to ask how badly they want it. I suppose one could ask any number of poll questions like “would you like the government to deliver free pizza to your house?” (getting a majority “yes”) but leaving off the follow-up question “are you willing to pay a pizza tax?” (getting a majority “no”).
Well, he stopped developing mentally at nine, so he’s trying to make do with a limited arsenal.
I will pray for you
Matthew 5:44
My dad is a great guy, and y’know what? He’s never once called me “pro-abortion”, or “baby killer”, or thought a political stance was going to end me up in hell.
Why on earth would a position be required to be monolithic? Why does this matter?
I don’t judge my dad by the arguments you put forth, and vice-versa, despite the fact you’re on the same general side of the issue.
Sure it’s relevant. Using that axiom, it’s trivially true to say “A fetus can be aborted, as that is the only method of preventing it from using the mother’s literal lifeblood. At birth, it is no longer using the mother’s lifeblood, and so other axioms apply from that point on.”
My property is not my own life’s blood. The above axiom does not apply.
Wow! Thank you! 
Is it okay if I make you work for this? It feels weird (and like I’m asking for too much), but it seems to be the only way to have a productive discussion and was hoping to use the discussion to explore my own position.
I totally get that.
While I agree with alternative for continuing academics in spite of a pregnancy, what concerns me about this is the impact of emotional suffering caused by requiring that the initial trauma be played out for so long. It’s one thing to be traumatized by rape, but it seems to me it would be quite another to be forced to endure that rape for nearly a year. When does the emotional healing begin and how does happen while still experiencing the physical effects of that trauma?
The axioms you laid out did not mention health (unless I missed it), so this may be a moot question: If you accept abortion to ensure the physical health of the mother, can you accept it to ensure her mental health?
You are probably right…at this point in time. Does that mean that with significant progress in medical intervention, at some point in the future a 48-year-old woman would not be eligible for a life/health exception? What percentage of risk do you propose is acceptable? I believe **irishgirl **posed this question earlier that was left unanswered.
It can easily be argued that the stress of the mother is detrimental to not only her health, but also that of her child.
First of all, why must we wait until mental health has been so compromised that suicide ideation is present?
Secondly, with all the talk about preserving life, how can one value life without considering quality of life? The medical community warns about the effects of stress during pregnancy which may lead to pre-term birth, low birthrates and all the associated developmental problems that go along with those results.
Am I saying it’s better to abort than to birth a less than healthy child? Yes, if the goal is to reduce suffering and that is what the mother wants. Doing so relieves the emotional suffering of the mother under extreme emotional stress; it also avoids the significantly likely physical and emotional suffering of the child. By the same token, I don’t expect every mother to choose abortion in the face of suffering by herself or her child. I just don’t see avoidance of suffering as an inhumane motivation for abortion.
Ideally, of course. And in the absence of welfare?
Again here, the motivation for abortion would be to eliminate unnecessary suffering by both mother and child. Inhumane?
Given a sterilization technique that a) is 100% effective, but b) does not cause significant health issues and risk to life/health that less invasive birth control methods present, right?
I know. That’s why I thought hard about these scenarios. I don’t understand how anyone can separate the emotional impact of unwanted pregnancy from the act of aborting said pregnancy. CLHP paints everyone who has an abortion and anyone who considers abortion a viable option as monsters, but IMO, that attitude is completely lacking compassion for the ability of human beings to suffer emotionally and the innate need to avoid suffering. That would enrage me if it didn’t break my heart as well. I can completely understand the desire to avoid inflicting on another the same pain one suffers themselves.
Oh, heh. Good question. Sorry I was unclear with this scenario. It was intended to portray the kid, who has suffered the affects of fetal alcohol syndrome (also unclear) as an adult now and pregnant. Along with her physical maladies and mental instability, she doesn’t have a high opinion of childhood.
I think by virtue of her previous suicide attempts, you would agree that she is a suicide risk and eligible to opt for abortion on the life/health exception.
So, instead, what say you on an alcoholic, abusive mother. Ought she be forced to carry a child to term?
How serious?
I know, that hurt me presenting them. But the idea is to demonstrate that the answers are not so cut-and-dry and that there are many, many reasons abortion is considered. In almost every case, whatever the reason, it is very significant to the people involved, whether it appears trivial to outsiders or not.
Thanks for your participation and you play devil’s advocate quite well. You’ve made it quite apparent what a difference consistency and considered debate makes.
Now aren’t you sweet. Man there’s some really unhappy and cranky people on this board.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what gave you that impression. I have been nothing but respectful to you while repeatedly requesting, to no avail, that you continue our discussion.
But, hey, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. What do you say, you prove me wrong? Still, awaiting your reply.
See, that’s the beauty of being pro-choice. We don’t have to agree! We pro-choicers have various justifications that are meaningful to each of us and all that really matters is that you have the ability to choose for yourself what you do and don’t believe.
Gay marriage ranks lower on the totem poll than does abortion. Abortion is a much bigger issue in American politics than is gay marriage.
Passing laws? Voting for pro-life leaders? Organizing grass-roots organizations?
There’d be an abortion tax?
…And, really, the conversation going on between Zeriel and BEG is making me lol inside. I suppose it’s best to leave them to their own little world there 
[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
See, that’s the beauty of being pro-choice. We don’t have to agree! We pro-choicers have various justifications that are meaningful to each of us and all that really matters is that you have the ability to choose for yourself what you do and don’t believe.
[/quote]
Unless, of course, you believe something outside of what pro-choicers are comfortable with. Then that doesn’t matter.
“it”.
Somewhere between conception and birth inclusive, the fetus becomes a person. That is the fundamental issue. And that is the point at which you negotiate the respective rights of the two individuals.
It does apply because that’s the argument. When does it become a person? Because it it’s a person, there arises the issue of where its rights begin.
The rest of those axioms are just ways of trying to game the rhetoric.
Now THAT is even funnier. Please don’t.
I knew it! As well as being a troll, you’re bigoted against religion. Why do you hate God?
Of course that was never our argument. You know that the argument is that ‘rights’ can change when another person is involved, so even PETA would not impose on the person’s rights if the animal was somehow attached to that person. I’ll bet you even the nutty ALF wouldn’t go that far. Hell, even PETA doesn’t protest eating meat, only the inhumane treatment of animals before they’re slaughtered (at least their typical stance is not to force everyone to become vegans).
Anyway, identity of the embryo arguments can be separated from rights of the mother. It has been explained over and over again that we do not force people to lose control of their bodies for someone else in other circumstances. The only thing anti-abortion people have to defend that is to place blame on the mother or say that it isn’t the embryo’s fault for being conceived. However, this is still giving special consideration to what is clearly not a baby that even babies don’t have. No one would force a mother to donate her blood to her own baby even if she did something to make the baby lose blood.
So really, your argument can be thrown back at you. Special human status is LOST once it hits air.
You haven’t demonstrated that and I don’t see it.
If I understand you correctly, you believe abortion is murder. I don’t agree with you. You may not want to have an abortion. I’m okay with that. As a pro-choicer, I can respect your right to carry a pregnancy to term. Can you respect my right to not carry a pregnancy to term?
I didn’t think so.
We’ve already compromised on that. We’re willing to go with Roe v. Wade which is quite conservative. Only 1st trimester abortions are protected. You rarely see pro-choice people screaming at the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade to protect abortions throughout the whole pregnancy.
Has it ever been a significant national election issue? I suppose some individual states might have had close races decided by the candidates’ stands on abortion, though no example come immediately to mind.
If this is what they are doing, why are the laws “nowhere near” what “society as a whole” wants?
Well, there’d be some cost or sacrifice involved, a cost that, as far as I can tell, not enough of American society (as a whole or otherwise) is eager to pay.