Should abortions performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy be a crime?

[MAV]

*Originally posted by candida *
I’m still sorry about your literacy problems and my having pointed them out so bluntly - you do seem to have more than something of a problem in that direction though, don’t you? It’s so hard, you know, when people don’t seem to be able to read what’s been written and get so silly about it.

Sigh…

Hmm… Give your neverending penchant for attempting to paint a “less than literate” image of me, don’t you find it odd that I can read your posts and understand that you simply have no capacity for real debate without using these pitiful attempts to belittle my intelligence?

**You see, MAV, you criticized my ‘moral’ position and arguments about ‘moral’ positions (quite what part of ‘I would not choose to have an abortion’ you didn’t understand I can’t imagine, your literacy problems again, I guess) and I said that it was possible to hold other moral positions, morally.

See, nothing hard there, MAV, really.**

Well, no, there’s nothing hard about your standpoint at all. No hard facts, no hard evidence, and no hard personal convictions.

I think you need to reread your own post, and if you’re going to copy it as evidence for something you said, you might want to copy ALL of your statement, which reads:

Originally posted by candida:
I’m anti-abortion but pro-choice. I know that I wouldn’t choose to have an abortion - though what a candida who, to take an extreme example, had seen her husband and children murdered and then had been raped by the attackers, would choose to do might be another matter, I cannot know that.

So, since I seem to have such a problem with comprehending the written word, maybe you can straighten me out on something. How is it that one can be against the procedure of abortion and for the choice to have an abortion at the same time? How can you be against a procedure that causes a pregnancy to be terminated and for the choice to terminate a pregnancy at the same time? HOW are you against abortion but for abortion at the same time?

Notice the use of the word ‘choose’, it’s something I do or would do and, since I’m affluent enough to afford to make that choice, whatever change there is in the law, it will remain my choice and never yours or anybody else’s.

Again, with my literacy issues, I do not understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that if the law is changed to disallow abortion, you “affluency” will allow you to break the law?

Perhaps it’s not my perceived inability to read, but your lack of ability to express yourself clearly that is the root of the problem here.

I’m afraid a Conservative Congress, Administration, Supreme Court - whatever - would still make no difference whatsoever to any decision I might possibly make over abortion, MAV. Not one jot of difference.

Here, again, it sounds as if you do not (or will not, if they are changed) respect the laws of this country. I would be happy to put you in contact with some Federal prosecutors that might be able to explain to you why it would be in your best interest to take heed of the laws of the land.

**Sorry about that MAV, but there it is, I’m afraid. **

There what is? You haven’t said anything of substance yet!

[MAV]

Dammit! Such an eloquent post, and left off the close italics formatting! Why can’t we edit our posts here?

[MAV]

*Originally posted by catsix *
Whether or not you show me the same courtesy, my decisions will be made by me, not by you.

I would be happy to show you the same courtesy, so long as you can prove that you’re not taking the life of an innocent human being in making and carrying out your decisions.

It’s not like either person in either scenario should be denied the ability to correct the accident. That’s the purpose of medical treatment.

The difference in the correction of the accident is that one is most definitely NOT taking the life of another human being for its correction. The other, at best, is questionable. As long as you can prove to me that the “correction of teh accident” is not taking the life of another human being, then I’ll agree with you.

Medical treatment is designed to save lives, not destroy them.

**Are you saying I don’t have common sense because I don’t believe a fetus is equivalent to a person? **

Not neccessarily. I am saying that it doesn’t take more than common sense to know that a fetus IS a person. It seems to take a lot of theorizing, rationalization, and justification to attempt to prove that it’s not.

[candida]

Hi MAV

Let’s see if I can make it simple enough for you this time and, don’t worry about your literacy problems, MAV, I have almost infinite patience.

I did think I made it clear originally that I would not choose to have an abortion, that my personal moral code would not allow me to do so (though I couldn’t say how I would feel in extremis, I don’t think anybody who isn’t in that position can say so with total certainty).

What ought to have been fairly simple to deduce is that I don’t believe that my personal moral position, as regards myself, should be enforced on anybody else and, absolutely certainly, I do not accept that your moral position should be enforced against me (or anybody else).

You and I would probably agree that the numbers of abortions should be reduced; my personal belief, though, is that people like you are unlikely ever to achieve that, quite the opposite (but that’s a different discussion at another time).

---

There are a number of reasons why one would be able to ‘break’ any law, MAV, including affluence or an inability of the law to be enforced.

Just how could the law be enforced if one indulged oneself in some abortion tourism, for example? How could the law be enforced against somebody doing something quite legal in another country? Under Prohibition, say, was it possible for somebody to be prosecuted for having a drink in Canada? Was having a drink in Canada a crime in the US?

Your Federal prosecutor friends might be rather interesting on just how the ‘laws of the land’ could be enforced against me, I fear they’d give up rather quickly.

[catsix]

Really MAV, it doesn’t take me any rationalization to know that a fetus is not a person or equivalent to one.

It takes common sense to realize that the owner of the uterus gets to choose whether or not a fetus stays in there.

[MAV]

*Originally posted by candida *
Let’s see if I can make it simple enough for you this time and, don’t worry about your literacy problems, MAV, I have almost infinite patience.

Same ol’ schtick, I see. Yawn…

I did think I made it clear originally that I would not choose to have an abortion, that my personal moral code would not allow me to do so.

Tell me about this “personal moral code”. Why is it, exactly, that you wouldn’t personally have an abortion?

What ought to have been fairly simple to deduce is that I don’t believe that my personal moral position, as regards myself, should be enforced on anybody else and, absolutely certainly, I do not accept that your moral position should be enforced against me (or anybody else).

That’s interesting. How, then, do you explain the enforcement of laws, which are usually nothing more than someone’s idea of “moral code”, upon you every day? Oh, wait – I forgot! Your “affluency” allows you to circumvent laws.

You and I would probably agree that the numbers of abortions should be reduced; my personal belief, though, is that people like you are unlikely ever to achieve that, quite the opposite (but that’s a different discussion at another time).

Will people like you ever achieve that goal?

There are a number of reasons why one would be able to ‘break’ any law, MAV, including affluence or an inability of the law to be enforced.

I suppose this also includes a general disrespect for authority. Am I wrong?

Just how could the law be enforced if one indulged oneself in some abortion tourism, for example?

See above.

**Your Federal prosecutor friends might be rather interesting on just how the ‘laws of the land’ could be enforced against me, I fear they’d give up rather quickly. **

Yep, you proved me wrong! You can go anywhere and do anything you want. It’s great that you’ve demonstrated such a disrespect for American laws. However, I think it’s accurate to say that most of the United States citizens are still subject to the country’s laws, despite your affluent abilities to circumvent them.

[candida]

MAV

Well, well, well, your reading ability does seem to be somewhat improved, you’re probably concentrating more.

There is no need to discuss my personal moral code with you, MAV; I’ve told you what it is in terms of the subject in hand and that’s all that is necessary. If you knew anything about moral systems other than your own, it would, just possibly, be worth it.

I’ve also dealt with the question of law and morals in an earlier reply to Joel. The fact that certain laws coincide with ‘moral codes’ does not mean that one has to accept the idea that law should be the enforcement of a whole, particular, set of ‘moral codes’ - a Christian and, particularly, MAV/Christian theocracy does not stand as the sole alternative to no law at all.

I liked the non-sequitur about an ability to ‘break’ (or circumvent) law including a ‘general disrespect for authority’, by the way. Certainly, MAV, I would have absolutely no respect for a MAVlike authority.

By the way, the only ‘disrespect for American laws’ I have shown is in rejecting your attempt impose something I fundamentally disagree with - unless you’ve arrived at the conclusion that ‘American laws’ are what MAV says they are. Abortion is legal and you certainly disrespect that.

[MAV]

*Originally posted by candida *
Well, well, well, your reading ability does seem to be somewhat improved, you’re probably concentrating more.

STILL the same tired lame personal insults…

There is no need to discuss my personal moral code with you, MAV; I’ve told you what it is in terms of the subject in hand and that’s all that is necessary.

You wouldn’t be dodging the question, now would you? No, not YOU! I didn’t expect that you’d give an answer to my question. Thanks for being so predictable.

If you knew anything about moral systems other than your own, it would, just possibly, be worth it.

If these so-called “moral systems” somehow attempt to justify the killing of innocent people, then thanks, but no thanks. There’s simply no way to correlate the terms “moral” and “murder”. Sorry.

The fact that certain laws coincide with ‘moral codes’ does not mean that one has to accept the idea that law should be the enforcement of a whole, particular, set of ‘moral codes’ - a Christian and, particularly, MAV/Christian theocracy does not stand as the sole alternative to no law at all.

If our current laws against murder, for example, aren’t based on the Judao/Christian ethic of “thou shalt not kill”, what, pray tell, ARE they based upon?

Certainly, MAV, I would have absolutely no respect for a MAVlike authority.

Certainly not! You’ve demonstrated your disrespect for moral laws on more than one occasion.

By the way, the only ‘disrespect for American laws’ I have shown is in rejecting your attempt impose something I fundamentally disagree with

Does your “fundamental disagreement” serve as your justification for your lack of respect of all laws that you just happen not to agree with, or just one that might limit one’s ability to kill her own offspring?

**Abortion is legal and you certainly disrespect that. **

Really? Maybe you can show me where I’ve talked about the times that I’ve restricted a woman’s freedom to have an abortion.

You, on the other hand, seem to be quite proud of yourself and the massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to laws of the land with which you have a “fundamental disagreement”. You’ve stated openly that any law that might restrict a woman’s right to have an abortion would “still make no difference whatsoever to any decision [you] might possibly make over abortion”, not one jot of difference.

Since I know you’re not going to concede regardless of anything I type, say, or do, and you’re sufficiently satisfied that you’re not going to change my viewpoint on this issue as well, I would be happy to stop this little bandwidth wasting session. I’ve got bigger fish to fry.

[candida]

Hi MAV

Now, why would you think I’d want to end the beginnings of such a fulfilling relationship, as I said earlier, at last I’ve found somebody genuinely, if rather stereotypically, funny around here?

I do wish you’d try to do something other than desperately scatter non-sequiturs all over the page, though - and take up so much space doing so.

Of course, you’d probably be much happier haranguing women who appear to be vulnerable enough to take your posturing seriously.

[MAV]

*Originally posted by candida *
I do wish you’d try to do something other than desperately scatter non-sequiturs all over the page, though

Rather than trying to obfuscate the issue with your claim of so-called “non-sequiturs”, why don’t you actually answer the questions put forth to you? Your refusal to do so is, in the most literal sense, weak.

**Of course, you’d probably be much happier haranguing women who appear to be vulnerable enough to take your posturing seriously. **

I would be happier debating with someone that had the substance and inclination to particpate in actual debate by answering direct questions. Trading pseudo-intellectual jabs back and forth with someone who lacks the tools neccessary for the contest simply isn’t a challenge for me.

Please answer the questions relevant to the debate that I have repeatedly put forth to you. If you do not wish to do so, please refrain from responding at all.

Thank you.

[candida]

I must admit that you have floored me MAV.

I just don’t know how to make things simple enough for you but your lack of deductive ability - no, that’s wrong, your random deductive processes - do seem to be a problem.

You have all the material you need, you just don’t seem to be able to read it.

So, I’ll leave you with what will be the last word.

[MAV]

More personal insults, and STILL no response to the questions…

Oh, well.