You simply have to have the argument at a rational level as to what the law should be. What is most useful to us, the living?
As soon as you invoke “human rights” the debate devolves into a silly argument by proxy in which each party claims their position is supported by supposedly pre-existing human rights, and justifies their allegation the human rights exist by a variety of rational and not so rational arguments about what those rights should or must be.
Cut out the middleman and just have an argument about what the law should rationally be and forget “human rights”.
A man who accidentally gets someone pregnant then is compelled to pay child support hasn’t made a tacit or outright promise to take care of the child any more than a pregnant woman has. Sure you can draw a distinction between what each is compelled to do if abortion is outlawed, but the fact remains that there are situations where you are compelled to do something to support another and it is only a question of degree.
In the end you are best off just having the argument about what the law should rationally be.
You aren’t getting my point and at this point there are no signs you are going to. Do you understand that my point is about your technique of persuasion, not your point as such?
I’m not sure what point you’re making. Are you justifying using an incorrect term, because “they do it too”? That’s exactly why I see it as a pointless semantic argument that doesn’t help address the issue.
and…you don’t really know their internal motivations. There’s no moral superiority either way. For the purposes of this thread, most abortions are done in the embryonic stage , before there’s even a fetus. People protesting at clinics and trying to convince women not to kill their baby are factually incorrect and IMO, being cruel to others based on their own emotional and religious beliefs. I don’t see any moral superiority in that, regardless of what exists in their imagination.
Let’s deal with facts and try to use proper terms.
No I don’t give a damn what you believe in. You are free to believe in whatever you want to believe in. It cetainly doesn’t mean I think you are right. That’s for damn sure.
I think A, is the more relevant one. An embryo is not a baby or a person, and anti abortionists that use those terms are simply wrong to do so. even the early stages of a fetus is not a baby. Legally a fetus is never a person before birth, but when we get to viability , the fetus ability to survive outside the womb, that’s at least based in documented facts.
Perhaps because it is MY fing belief that it is a baby and it is my choice to feel this way. You pro-choicers should be able to understand about choices right?
Believe as you will. Express you beliefs openly. But do not accost people who are conducting private, lawful activities. Or may I splash blood on women in fur coats, slap cigarettes from smoker’s mouths, and harangue voters at the polling place who look like they’ll vote for the candidate I oppose?
I think it’s a mistake to even make it about human rights since anti abortionists are wrong to insist an embryo is a baby or person. I wouldn’t even accept that as a premise to argue from. It’s up to them to demonstrate that premise is correct and they simply can’t. anti abortionists who are convinced they are trying to “save babies” are deluding themselves.
We can discuss abortions done when the fetus reaches a point of viability, which is an incredibly small % of abortions done. {less than 1%} Even that is a moral discussion rather than a human rights issue. I say, don’t allow the issue to be hijacked into an emotional factually incorrect one.
If it’s a sanctity of human life argument, there are many children and people on this planet already that need our help and attention. It’s not just a question of irresponsible parents bringing unwanted children into the world. IMO, it’s irresponsible for anti abortionists to insist on bringing more children into the world without working to care for them and provide for them.
Yes, and we understand about not forcing our choices on other people, particularly in regards to medical matters.
I don’t eat meat. Should I pickeit outside McDonald’s and call the burger eaters horrible names? Carry pictures of dead cows?
Whoopi Goldberg is the most pro-choice person on the planet. When her 15 year old daughter infomred her she was pregnant and would have and keep the baby, Whoopi supported her decision to do so, because “that’s what being pro-choice is all about.” The anti-abortion people don’t give her any credit for that.
Great. People who choose abortion can also have a clear conscience. The point of the OP is protestors at their clinic telling them they shouldn’t be free to make their own moral choice.
I hope you understand the difference between feeling something , and actual facts.
It’s not a baby because you feel like it is.
I completely understand the reverence toward the potential life that is present in any pregnancy. I think most pro choice people do. There is a significant difference between reverence for that potential life, and trying to impose your own moral beliefs on others, in denial of the facts. That’s what this thread and the issue is about.
There are people who would never have an abortion themselves, who can let others make that choice for them selves.
The first rule of law you are allowed to have your own opinions. You are NOT allowed to have your own facts.
It has never been factually, or more important legally, determined that a fetus in the womb is a baby with all human rights. You want to believe that, fine. I don’t and that is an opinion I have ever legal right to have.
Obviously your so-called moral values are based on religion or something supernatural. Your belief that a fetus = a baby has no basis in natural reality. You’re philosophy is based on either:
a soul (a sacred being) enters the entity at conception,
a recently-created human genome is sacred,
bad ju-ju is created when someone interrupts the initiation of a potential human being
or, my favorite,
if someone doesn’t get a chance to be born, they’re gonna be sad.
None of these are based on rational moral values such as maximizing law and order and minimizing suffering.
Another problem I’m having with the phrase “killing babies” is that it puts all women who get abortions into the category of Casual, Heartless Murderers regardless of the circumstances.
Cosmodan has good posts in this thread. Unfortunately, it will require a serious epiphany for classyladyhp to understand that her beliefs are not based on facts. Debating on a message board will only solidify her stance. As you can see, her mind is already circling the wagons and preventing anything from getting through. As is always the case, she is now acting as the one who is being persecuted and the pro-choicers are not allowing her freedom to make her own choices. A bizarre and completely backwards perspective, but very typical in RELIGIOUS conservatives who are faced with someone standing up to their authoritarian views (eg. You’re not letting me impose my religion on you!!!).
You’re being ridiculous do you know that? Since when do beliefs have to be based on facts? Theists believe in God but they don’t have any facts to back that up do they. I have not once stated what religion I am and I don’t intend to so stop pretending you know what religion I am because ya don’t…
My mind is not circling the wagons. For a pro-choice person you certainly are not allowing me my choice to have my own beliefs are you.
Do you guys think if you assault me enough verbally that I am going to take the WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE immoral pro-choice view. No I am not. Life is sacred…
I think the issue is being able to respond to people who disagree without being nasty or insulting.
IMO, “you’re stupid for believing what you believe” is not very different than, "you’re immoral " {not aimed at you in particular}
It’s not necessary to convince people their personal opinion or feeling on the issue is wrong. It’s only necessary to get them to understand that they don’t have the right to impose their opinions and feelings on others and that when it comes to establishing laws and human rights, facts do matter more than personal opinions.
This mindset explains a lot of what the anti-abortion rights movement churns out (including frequently alleged but debunked links between abortion and cancer).
When you’re a true believer with a shiny, glossy conscience you can lie like hell and it doesn’t matter.
As Stephen King pointed out in his tome Insomnia, the whole argument is not on what’s legal. Abortion is legal, and it is probably going to stay that way. It’s an argument between who is right.
Most pro-choice people support a pregnant woman’s personal choice to do what she wants. The anti-abortion people will not give up until everybody says "You’re right."If you ever read some of the anti-abortion literature, your jaw will just drop. My favorite quote in one of Randy Alcorn’s: It’s reasonable to expect a person to live with a temporary minor inconvenience if the only alternative is the death of another human being.
When an abortion clinic won a $8,000,000 settlement against this guy, he immediately pulled an OJ and got rid of all his income.