Fair point.
I was talking strictly about abortions for unwanted pregnancies.
Fine - they want to consider it murder, just like it would be murder to kill a person.
Neither of us are anti-abortion, so we can’t speak for them. But I simply think my understanding of their views is more accurate than yours. Not much more to say unless we want to go do a bunch of research.
Why are you asking me that? I’m not anti-abortion.
Wow.
That’s fucking pathetic.
So you think it’s okay to kill a fetus just because of how it was created?
Unbelievable.
What incredibly fucked up ethics you have.
Of course, a fetus created unintentionally, through consensual sex, might also be said to be non-consensual, since the woman didn’t “give pemission” for it to be conceived. But no matter.
For you to walk in here and declare that you want to tell women they can’t abort based on nothing but their decision-making on sex was is absurd and insulting. To say that the government should intervene in a woman’s body for the interest of a fetus - and then turn around and abandon certain innocent fetuses simply based on who gave permission for them to be created - is loony hypocrisy. You are the last person who needs to be telling any woman what to do.
You’re a monster who kills babies too, dude–any “baby” who is the product of rape. I suggest you find the courage to be consistent in your beliefs before you spout off any more. Either you protect ALL fetuses, or stay out of it.
No, one side says that an individual freedom exists, and the other says it doesn’t.
The government regulates behavior when it bans murder. There is no individual freedom to murder.
If abortion is akin to murder, that’s the same thing.
If abortion is not like murder, it’s a matter of a woman’s privacy.
That’s why the ONLY question that matters in this debate is the status of the zygote/embryo/fetus.
Exactly. So you’re pro-choice?
You can NEVER talk yourself into a situation where you can say abortion is unethical, yet then say it’s ethical in case of rape. It simply doesn’t work. You have to take one or the other.
My argument’s just fine. The failing would be in being overly generous to arguments that are not reasoned just because they are in opposition to arguments that are.
If you think you can declare victory before the debate begins, you’re going to fail miserably.
I don’t think you’ve met your match yet. Someone will come along and knock you down a peg someday.
That’s a rather bold misinterpretation of my statements. My reference to “eternal vigilance” should clearly indicate I don’t consider the issue resolved. It is effectively resolved in Canada, for now at least, but I have justifiable concerns that backsliding can occur, sparked by pro-lifers using their standard emotional appeals, aided by people who think that since there are two opposing sides, they must be of equal merit.
Well, here I am. If you know of a possible candidate, feel free to pass along my invitation to bring it on.
No, but you think you can just walk in and declare that the other side is irrational and call it a day. Won’t work.
The first thing they’ll say is “that’s not what I believe at all. You don’t even understand what I believe, so how can you argue against it?” Then what will you do?
Nobody said that.
(Oh, and there’s plenty of lazy emotional appeals from pro-choicers too.)
Well, here I am. If you know of a possible candidate, feel free to pass along my invitation to bring it on.
[/QUOTE]
No way. I want someone better than you in the ring.
Well, I have to do again tomorrow and the day after that. That’s eternal vigilance for you.
Ask them to state their beliefs, with the full expectation it’ll be another form of “don’t kill babies / mothers don’t matter”.
I admit the possibility I may one day be surprised. I’ve even described on this board the (highly hypothetical) circumstances under which my own stance might change.
Ever?
Well, if they’re on the rational side for a less-than-rational reason, no big deal.
So you’re waiting for someone who’s met their match even less?
No, that’s laziness.
You’ll get your ass handed to you some day, and you’ll learn.
You’re making less and less sense, so I guess we’re done.
Since I think the incest exception is under the assumption that it is rape, I’m not going to cover that. I can’t wrap my head around it otherwise.
Well, the reason they want to do it is what most people think–they consider having a baby a natural consequence of having sex, and, thus, if the baby was had through no input of their own, the baby wasn’t their fault and they can remove it.
The only question is why that is assumed to mean that women are hated. What is hated is premarital sex. It’s just that the consequences are more visible to women.
This also means that pro-lifers do not actually value the unborn as equal to humans, as the pain caused to the rape victim in having to raise the child is considered of more importance than the life of the unborn. It’s just that the pain of going through childbirth on its own is not considered more important. They value the unborn more than the pro-abortion* crowd.
*Used to exclude pro-choicers who are anti-abortion, but don’t think they have the right to tell others how to believe, not as a slight towards the group. Remember, I’m in neither group.
You’ll learn.
Well, even if “hate” is too strong a term, there’s a determined indifference that can be enable harm all the same, rather like being okay with the Cherokee being driven out of the southeast doesn’t require hatred of the Cherokee, but an utter lack of concern about what’ll happen to them as a result.
You’re starting to learn.
Exactly. That’s the pro-choice position. A child is not the same as a fetus.
I don’t see how this supports your position that a child is not the same as a fetus.
But you just said that a child is not the same as a fetus!
It seems like you want to have it both ways. You claim that a fetus is a baby when you argue against abortion. But when someone points out the full consequences as treating fetuses as children, you claim that they’re not. :dubious:
This suggests you think my position has changed. You would be wrong.
No, your attitude has. It was never about your position.