Troll a sincere prolifer.

[Hot Mustard]

Nice try, but you cannot say what what you have to show and what you don't, in order to convince me.

When I said "voice", it was a short form for "opinions and choices made by a free will". I wasn't talking about the social ideals of rights to life and liberty.

Did you notice what happened once you assumed it was okay to be a representative voice for a free will you cannot know?

Originally posted by obiwan18
Good point. Now I have to show why the unborn child's right to life does not supercede the woman's right to life, but only her right to liberty.

I agree with abortion in the case where the mother's life is in danger, most typically found in ectopic pregnancies. In this case, it is better for one life to perish rather than two, since a neglected ectopic pregnancy will rupture the mother's fallopian tubes, killing both the mother and child.

This is why my position does not enforce the child's right to life over the mother's right to life, but only over her right to liberty. No one is justified to kill a person, just because they are an inconvenience.

As I said earlier, you are superimposing your viewpoints on your representative voice.

It is very noble, yet very dangerous, to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves. In other circumstances, you may have direct contact with the people, have known them for some time, have much in common with them, have communicated with others in similar situations, or any number of other possibilies - all of which may grant you some credibility to speak for someone.

In this situation, no so such credibility exists. Especially when you were the one to declare that those people a) are people (I gave you that one); and b) the opinion you offer is your own. As I said earlier - the idea of a representative voice is self-serving.

We cannot know the choices of a free will that cannot communicate. We cannot know that the clinically brain-dead person, who wrote a letter with their wishes, hasn't changed their mind. And we cannot know that a product of conception would choose life over death. They might be a social maverick who does not subscribe to our social ideals. They might assess the likelyhood of a life of foster care or living in slums (or for that matter, living a materialistic and empty life) as not worthwhile. They might choose to take their chances with the next conception that comes along (if you believe in souls).

The bottom line is - we cannot know. No matter what popular social opinion says, no matter how strong your personal opinions are - you just cannot speak for that free will. (Which is why it doesn't matter scientifically if it is a person or not, for me.)

Once again however, I remind you that you can respect the choices of the woman, and should.

[Ben Kenobi]

dejon:

Did you notice what happened once you assumed it was okay to be a representative voice for a free will you cannot know?

What do you mean we cannot 'know' the unborn children? We have ultrasound that enables us to see them. We can see them grow through every stage of development.

As I said earlier, you are superimposing your viewpoints on your representative voice.

I assume that unborn children wish to live and not to die. That seems a pretty safe bet to me.

b) the opinion you offer is your own. As I said earlier - the idea of a representative voice is self-serving.

What do I have to gain for speaking up for the unborn children? How am I serving myself?

And we cannot know that a product of conception would choose life over death. They might be a social maverick who does not subscribe to our social ideals. They might assess the likelyhood of a life of foster care or living in slums (or for that matter, living a materialistic and empty life) as not worthwhile.

Clever way to put the question. Since we cannot know their wishes, why should we kill them? How do we know that they want to be killed? I say let them live and then let them decide if they want to play the cards that life has given them.

you just cannot speak for that free will.

If the unborn child is a living human person, then we have no right to kill the person without their consent. If the unborn child is a living human person, then we already stand condemned for all the abortions performed, since we have not spoken out for the death of an innocent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tia:

Realisticaly with no education, no work expeierence how are you going to pay the bills and raise a child?

Look at it this way. The child is your grandchild.
You willing to write off her entire life?

Secondly, your daughter should be able to sue for child support from the 26 year old. I don't disagree that she has a stacked deck, but you just don't give up on a person.

Are there any jobs your daughter could do?

No crystal ball I just know where she came from and I know the life she is living now and the "thug" mentality she is trying to live and in that situation no,

"thug" mentality? If your daughter wants to keep her child, she is going to have to grow up fast.

[Elok]

Buck: Are you being sarcastic, or do you actually believe in that kind of generalization?

Dejon: You seem to be effectively placing the desires of one human being above the desires of another based on...what? Seniority? Why are you brushing off the idea of human rights for a fetus so quickly? We cannot know their choice, but assume it's thumbs down to be on the safe side? You'd think erring on the side of caution would be letting the kid out in case s/he wants to live. Your arguments just aren't adding up. Generally speaking, I second what Obiwan says. Three months past conception is a bit young to be developing suicidal angst. And drawing the line on human rights based in any way on material prospects is little short of monstrous. Just my opinion, of course.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by obiwan18
What do you mean we cannot 'know' the unborn children? We have ultrasound that enables us to see them. We can see them grow through every stage of development.

I meant "know" as in "know their wishes".

Originally posted by obiwan18
I assume that unborn children wish to live and not to die. That seems a pretty safe bet to me.

Not so, see previous post.

Originally posted by obiwan18
What do I have to gain for speaking up for the unborn children? How am I serving myself?

Sorry I didn't make this clear - when I say self-serving, I mean your argument is self-serving.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Clever way to put the question. Since we cannot know their wishes, why should we kill them? How do we know that they want to be killed? I say let them live and then let them decide if they want to play the cards that life has given them.

I never said we could know they want to killed, in fact, I said over and over that we cannot know anything.

"Safe bet", "play the cards"? You're truly a gambler - aren't you? (One is out of context, I know - I couldn't resist. )

It comes down this for me: I will not dismiss the woman's free will on the chance that their potential child would not only disapprove of their choice, but also disagree with their right to choose.

Originally posted by obiwan18
If the unborn child is a living human person, then we have no right to kill the person without their consent. If the unborn child is a living human person, then we already stand condemned for all the abortions performed, since we have not spoken out for the death of an innocent.

I gave you the "person" in order to illustrate the problem with a representative voice. There is no way to determine the truth or fallacy of personhood at any scientific point. Does adding "living human" in front of "person" somehow make it a social citizen with civil rights?

You might want to avoid using words like "condemned" if you wish to continuing avoiding religious connotations in the debate.

[Elok]

You think somebody would choose to croak in order to avoid offending his/her mother's sensibilities? I sure as hell wouldn't. If anybody on this board would choose to do so, speak up!

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Elok
Dejon: You seem to be effectively placing the desires of one human being above the desires of another based on...what? Seniority? Why are you brushing off the idea of human rights for a fetus so quickly? We cannot know their choice, but assume it's thumbs down to be on the safe side? You'd think erring on the side of caution would be letting the kid out in case s/he wants to live. Your arguments just aren't adding up. Generally speaking, I second what Obiwan says. Three months past conception is a bit young to be developing suicidal angst. And drawing the line on human rights based in any way on material prospects is little short of monstrous. Just my opinion, of course.

I'll repeat the most relevant part of my previous post here, as it may also clarify my viewpoint for you:

I will not dismiss the woman's free will on the chance that their potential child would not only disapprove of their choice, but also disagree with their right to choose.

[Jon Miller]

hmm

so if you are asleep

I can kill you, since if you potentially do wake, you might want to die?

actually that is not the negative of your statement, youer statemnt seems to suggests that it is the merest possible chance that you would not want to die (that I can kill you (or anyone else I don't know) because you will probably want to die)

I don't know about you, but most people I know want to live, and those that don't (disregarding med cases) we generally think have psych issues (and should not be allowed to die)

Jon Miller

[Elok]

Barring a miscarriage, the "potential" child is damned near certain to come about. You don't refuse to cook dinner because your potential guest might get in a car accident on the way there. At least, I don't. The idea of the potential child is more or less irrelevant.
And suicidal tendencies are also a pretty slim chance. Suicidal tendencies among those out of the womb are attributed to mental illness. Which is to say, it's generally assumed that any rational person will want to live. Note that there is no caveat in the books as regards educational, health, or career prospects, or anything related to income or social station. I agree with that assumption. I don't know the exact suicide rate in this or other countries, but I can't imagine it's above five percent. Factor in miscarriage and you're banking on what, a fifteen percent chance? And if you wind up screwing over those 15%, they can easily remedy the situation with a .45. The other 85 can't be resurrected should you deny their wish. What you propose is not rational.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by dejon
...but also disagree with their right to choose.

While I understand everyone's disbelief in the other elements, a large percentage of society supports pro-choice.

Btw, I loved the inference that anyone who doesn't think like the rest of society must be insane.

[Tuberski]

I don't know how many times I read the thread title before I realized it said pro-lifer, instead of profiler. Get Dyslexia in my old age apparently.

ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
This IS an interesting thread.

Would be, if there haven't been a gazillion other threads on the same topic before.

[orange]

God dammit! I walk away for 5 hours...FIVE HOURS...and already it's on page 6. This place is toooo fast anymore

[Ben Kenobi]

dejon:

You might want to avoid using words like "condemned" if you wish to continuing avoiding religious connotations in the debate.

In this context I'm looking at the condemnation future societies harbour for the flaws of the past societies. Can you think of a better word to express the same idea?

I will not dismiss the woman's free will on the chance that their potential child would not only disapprove of their choice, but also disagree with their right to choose.

Now you have retreated a step. I thought that you conceded that the unborn child is an actual person, and not a potential person. I agree, we should not sacrifice the mother's rights for a potential person, but the stakes change if we are dealing with an actual person.

"Safe bet", "play the cards"? You're truly a gambler - aren't you? (One is out of context, I know - I couldn't resist. )

Metaphors are the spice of life. BTW, neither are out of context.

Does adding "living human" in front of "person" somehow make it a social citizen with civil rights?

No. "Living human" is an important qualifier so that we can seperate the different terms of the debate: life, humanity and personhood.

We know that an unborn child is living and human from what science tells us, but what about personhood? You seem to like free-will as a criterion of personhood, to which I replied earlier that the important feature is not the current ability but the intrinsic capacity for free will possessed by the zygote through the genetic code formed at conception.

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Tia:

Look at it this way. The child is your grandchild.
You willing to write off her entire life?

Oh no. Please don't get me wrong. In no way shape or form am I writing off my granddaughter. However, we do live in a real world with real problems like having money to buy the diapers, pay the bills, pay the daycare etc. My husband and I have even offered to take the child and raise it as our own. We have a huge house in the country with horse stables and 5 acres of land. A good place to raise a child. We are trying to do everything possible for this child. But when you have a 17 year old that ......and work with me here because we were all 17 once and thought we knew everything and our parents were wrong........this is what we are up against. I get things thrown at me like oh mother....you don't know what your talking about. I don't? NOOOOOOooo I only raised three daughters by myself would leave my secretary job at 6 go home kiss my kids throw dinner on the table change clothes check homework and be out the door by 8 to go bartend until 3 in the morning and get up by 6 and do it all over again.

The reality of being a parent is not hitting home with her. She thinks just because she gets on food stamps and section 8 that everything is going to fall into place.

Secondly, your daughter should be able to sue for child support from the 26 year old. I don't disagree that she has a stacked deck, but you just don't give up on a person.

I"m the queen at getting back child support. I got all $31,000.00 of my back child support back. But in order to get child support you need to have a legitimate job not selling pot on the streets and.............I may get the vanacular wrong on this but........not out "rolling with your boys". He acts like she is crazy and ignores any attempts she makes to try to take care of this. She was nothing to this guy but some white meat. I know that sounds racist but when you have a 6 ft. blonde hair blue eyed barbie doll who is beautiful and along comes this thug with gold teeth **shudders** I never understood what was so attractive about that where else can my mind wonder.

Are there any jobs your daughter could do?

At this point in time....yeah. Would you like ketchup with those fries? I get angry at this because she was a straight A student who wanted to be a lawyer. Now she has bought into that mentality that oh well.....there's all these programs out there for me so why should I have to do anything. Besides I'm gonna get a job. But when you pin her down and ask her what type of job she wants to do she can't answer you.

"thug" mentality? If your daughter wants to keep her child, she is going to have to grow up fast.

I would saying going to be a mother at 17 she already has.