Are you still in favor of killing this child?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think all abortions should be illegal, except for after 'viability' (when the child can live outside the body), and then the child should be removed.

Imran:

Well, then why do you say consent is the issue? That's why I made the point about rape because that is the only situation in where consent even comes into play.

What does viability measure? Look at how far the situation has changed since Roe v. Wade. Babies as young as 21 weeks have survived with the improvements in neonatal care.

Viability has everything to do with the environment, and nothing to do with the child. If you were to go to the North pole, by yourself, would you be viable?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jack:

Do you honestly believe that women who seek abortions are living under approximately the same circumstances as normal expectant mothers?

Yes.

That they have the same financial and /or relationship issues?

Over the entire sample, the differences would not account for the differences we see in the suicide rate.

That women who seek abortions generally have no reason to do so?

No. Where do I say that? You are reaching.

...Because I suspect that the activities of "pro-lifers" are largely responsible for the suicide rate in the US. Far too many desperate, upset, vulnerable women go to clinics where a hysterical mob screams "Whore! Murderer! Scum!" at them.

Clever, however you are only 40 years too late.

From Dr. King's Letter to a Birmingham Jail.

Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?

Secondly, show me a prolife demonstration where the prolifers are the ones 'screaming and shouting at the women on the street, calling them murderers, etc.'

If you CAN see that the argument is fallacious: can you see that your "abortions cause suicide" argument contains the SAME fallacy?

I note you do not address a single one of my objections to the false analogy. Yes your example is false, but no, it cannot serve as a proper analogy to my argument about abortion.

I suggest that you rebut the points already made as to false analogy:

1. Abortions are only rarely done to save the life of the mother.
2. Abortions always result in the death of an unborn child.

[Ben Kenobi]

On the contrary, you need to provide evidence that the "unborn" (whatever it is) are persons.

Urban Ranger:

Thought you'd never ask.

1. Unborn children are living human persons.

They are living because living things can only come from other living things.

They are human because their parents are human.

Finally, from conception onwards, the unborn child is a person because everything they need to grow and developlike other persons is contained inside the zygote.

There no significant differences between an unborn child and an infant with respect to personhood.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now which is it? The judged ruled on the case or made laws for society? Both?

Yes both. You see, in our common law system, judges rule based on the facts of the case and make a ruling that becomes law (the common law). This ruling MUST be adhered to by lower court judges. So yes, he is ruling for BOTH the facts of the case and society, and in fact, you cannot seperate them.

I know this may be hard to grasp for someone like yourself, who is not versed in the law, but try to follow, will you?

Roe is an interesting case, because by all indications, she shouldn't have had standing. HOWEVER, the court took up the case because of the legal issue in general. Other women would have to deal with the same problems, but because of the slowness of legal system, they'd never reach the SCOTUS before the baby was born, so in the end, there were ruling for society. It didn't impact her worth a damn.

Yes, I know, history isn't your strong suit either.

If not then the judge is ruling cases based on thier opinion of social engineering not the case before them...

That would be wrong would it not?

Why, because you disagree with the ruling on the case? I wonder how a unlegal mind such as yourself can see a situation where a judge can seperate the 'case before then' from societial rules. Seeing that that cool thing called 'law' is a societal rule, and the judge is also making law.

So what you call 'social engineering' is called by most laypeople as law.

Hope that was simple enough for you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. Unborn children are living human persons.

They are living because living things can only come from other living things.

They are human because their parents are human.

Finally, from conception onwards, the unborn child is a person because everything they need to grow and developlike other persons is contained inside the zygote.

There no significant differences between an unborn child and an infant with respect to personhood.

Haven't we been here before?

Again, since a zygote is no different from any of your body cells, so, by your logic, it is at least immoral to hurt yourself, or getting yourself hurt.

[blackice]

Imran Siddiqui so then the judge must also rule in favor of the applicant in this "vacation" in favor of Roe too...For the sake of the society seeing all the harm it has caused, the witnesses etc. At this point one would have to say it was a bad decission obviously...Well according to the victor....

Nice to see in Canada at least we are trying to separate politics and social engineering from the judges... It should be in the peoples hands and or the politicians elected by the people. Not in the hands of the one judge who was not elected and does not speak for the people. This case strengthens that point to the extreme. Look at the victims one judge created....

An enormous case of sentencing the victims and the innocent.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Again, since a zygote is no different from any of your body cells, so, by your logic, it is at least immoral to hurt yourself, or getting yourself hurt.

As he said, a zygote has everything necessary to develop into an independent being. If you hurt yourself you're killing cells that are only a part of you and can't survive independently. The distinction should be pretty obvious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

At this point one would have to say it was a bad decission obviously...Well according to the victor....

The 'victor' doesn't matter. It was a good decision for everyone similarly situated.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ben:

Do you honestly believe that women who seek abortions are living under approximately the same circumstances as normal expectant mothers?

...That they have the same financial and /or relationship issues?

Over the entire sample, the differences would not account for the differences we see in the suicide rate.

Baseless (and ludicrous) assertion.

Women who CHOOSE to have kids are MORE secure than the average woman. This is not a decision entered into lightly. Most women choose to become mothers when they are in a stable relationship and have the means to raise the child.

Whereas women who seek abortions are usually desperately unhappy. They include women who have been abandoned, women who are too poor to cope with kids, and rape victims (not a lot of those, but not many commit suicide either: it doesn't take many pregnant and suicidal rape victims to drive up the overall suicide rate).

...Because I suspect that the activities of "pro-lifers" are largely responsible for the suicide rate in the US. Far too many desperate, upset, vulnerable women go to clinics where a hysterical mob screams "Whore! Murderer! Scum!" at them.

Clever, however you are only 40 years too late.

From Dr. King's Letter to a Birmingham Jail...

...In which you don't refute this theory.

Secondly, show me a prolife demonstration where the prolifers are the ones 'screaming and shouting at the women on the street, calling them murderers, etc.'

You're denying that this happens?

I could introduce you to people who act as volunteer "escorts", helping to get women in and out of abortion clinics through the baying mobs that wait outside them. One of those volunteers was shot dead by a "pro-lifer".

If you CAN see that the argument is fallacious: can you see that your "abortions cause suicide" argument contains the SAME fallacy?

I note you do not address a single one of my objections to the false analogy. Yes your example is false, but no, it cannot serve as a proper analogy to my argument about abortion.

I suggest that you rebut the points already made as to false analogy:

1. Abortions are only rarely done to save the life of the mother.
2. Abortions always result in the death of an unborn child.

Neither of which is remotely relevant to the issue here: your bizarre and fallacious argument that abortions cause suicide.

Furthermore, you seem to be "in denial" about the consequences of the policy you seek to impose on women, which will increase the suicide rate. You can't make suicidally depressed women happier by denying them what they desperately want, or by turning them into criminals!

[Verres]

Couldn't agree more. Finally, someone with a brain

[Elok]

Ahem. Prozac has been proven to treat depression and thereby relieve suicidal urges. Abortion has not. If you want women to stop killing themselves, and you think the availability of efficient baby-killing methods is key to that goal, I think you're looking in the wrong place.
And UR, if you kill off a body cell, do you cease to exist as an independent organism? Is that body cell gone forever, or will another body cell likely grow in to take its place? Most importantly, have you ever had a cell in, say, your arm grow into a baby for some reason? Really, the difference should be obvious, like Darius and Ben said.

[Q Classic]

yes. we want to get rid of as many humans as possible. i say mandatory sterlization of all people, and random detonations of nuclear devices, preferably with a low-yield high-radiation payload, in densely populated regions of the world

===

i say abortion's murder, plain and simple. to terminate the life of another human being is rather heinous, and thus i cannot condone it.
seeing, however, as i'll never have a parasite like that feeding off of my body and obviously enjoying it, i do not believe i have the right to legislate whether or not abortion should be legal or not.
the decision lies with the woman, who is clearly the victim of this dangerous infection.
the father should definitely have some say, but since it's not him suffering from the symptoms, it is the woman who should have the final say in her treatment course: wait it out, or to use antibiotics and surgery. she does, however, need to make the decision almost immediately. if she waits until the infection lasts longer than 3 months, she should consult a doctor who specializes in these cases, because the chemical/surgical treatment should no longer be an option.

[Elok]

Er, are you being sarcastic, or did you actually just say, "I think it's murder but see no reason for preventing it"?

[Q Classic]

i'm mostly being sarcastic. when you look at it, you can spin pregnancy that way, so...

i do believe abortion is murder. but because i will never be pregnant, i have to admit that although i will try my hardest to convince women not to abort, i will have to defer to their decision in the end, and because of that, i don't feel comfortable with any legislation prohibiting it.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


i'm mostly being sarcastic. when you look at it, you can spin pregnancy that way, so...

i do believe abortion is murder. but because i will never be pregnant, i have to admit that although i will try my hardest to convince women not to abort, i will have to defer to their decision in the end, and because of that, i don't feel comfortable with any legislation prohibiting it.

why don't u defer to the unborn child?