Let us cut the crap.

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why not? Have you tried to put a mirror in front of an infant? It recognises itself.

not before the rapid head-growth, he doesn't.

Let's throw him in the dumpster.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
GePap: it is Nietzsche-babble because it ignores an actual issue by making broad psychoanalytical generalizations about the human race, and in the process implies that the question asked is beneath you. I didn't ask you about the development of society and why we stupid Americans are narrow-minded. If we are wrong and it is better to think of things in terms of demographic consequences like the wise people in India, please explain why. If, on the other hand, you're doing one of those "there is no absolute truth" things, why are you even arguing?

I must wonder where the hell you draw your implications from..cause they seem to come out of left field-must be that anti-Kane side of you.

Abortion is part of reproductive policy, just like defining what is murder or not is part of crimnal policy..and if people start trying to decide that policy should be base don moral absolutes that do NOT exists, then one is basing policy on a foundation of smoke..and what happens to such edifices? Personally, I prefer policy to come from more sensible realms.

THe fact is that Roe v Wade was a problematic decision, becuase it turned the aboriton battle into a constitutional ojne instead of a legislative one, which it should not be. I support the ability of women to get abortions..is it a right? NO, no more than there is some nebulous "right to life".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
not before the rapid head-growth, he doesn't.

Let's throw him in the dumpster.

I have never seen any cites to that effect. But if that's the case, I completely agree.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
There's no pat analogy here, but nobody's ever explained to me why it doesn't matter that one becomes the other.

If you don't think there's a difference between the two, you have to agree that there is nothing wrong with murder. After all, we are all going to die, right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


I must wonder where the hell you draw your implications from..cause they seem to come out of left field-must be that anti-Kane side of you.

Abortion is part of reproductive policy, just like defining what is murder or not is part of crimnal policy..and if people start trying to decide that policy should be base don moral absolutes that do NOT exists, then one is basing policy on a foundation of smoke..and what happens to such edifices? Personally, I prefer policy to come from more sensible realms.

THe fact is that Roe v Wade was a problematic decision, becuase it turned the aboriton battle into a constitutional ojne instead of a legislative one, which it should not be. I support the ability of women to get abortions..is it a right? NO, no more than there is some nebulous "right to life".

GePap, for once, you and I are in complete agreement. Abortion is a legislative matter or a matter that should be decided by the people in a direct referendum such as we have here in "Kali"-fornia.

The Supremes started down this "privacy" path earlier when they declared statutes regulating private sexual activity unconstitutional. Do you also believe the Supremes should or should have stayed out of this area? You cannot have one without the other.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are begging the question, because you are already assuming the "unborn child" is a person.

And you are assuming that the unbron child is not. Please rebut my earlier argument where I explain why the unborn child is a person.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

And how do you know that an unborn child will not recognise himself in the womb?

Theben:

Maybe men could force women to have babies if women could force men to have vasectomies.

Ah, but that would only work during the case of rape. Do you agree we should ban all other abortions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

You fail to understand my critique. All pregnancies have a marginal risk of death, though hardly substantial. Does this mean that everyone has the right to kill someone just because their life may be at risk?

If someone approaches you with a black object in his hand, does that give you the right to shoot him in the head, killing him? No.

A better wording of your policy would be to name the specific conditions, of which the only one common is ectopic pregnancy. I agree that where we have an ectopic pregnancy that because we cannot save both lives, we ought to save the one that we can, the mother. At this point in time, we cannot save the life of the unborn child in this situation.

It's not about a balance of lives, but that we can save one life rather than letting two die.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

I think will eventually permit deformed and genetically diseased infants to die rather than to allow them to suffer horribly until they do die. Not pulling the plug under these circumstances in my view is inhumane.

Okay. Why don't you start by killing all those downs syndrome children, the spastics, those with cystic fibrosis, the deaf, the blind who all have genetic causes for their afflictions? It would save society plenty of money, and spare them from suffering.

Is this humane?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Theben:

Ah, but that would only work during the case of rape. Do you agree we should ban all other abortions?

Read my earlier post regarding my views on abortion (the one you haven't answered).

And if you think I'm kidding about the vasectomies, think again. If vasectomies were 100% reversible, I'd call for legislation to have all male children snipped at the age of 12. You can get 'em put back to normal when you want kids, starting at age 21.

No more unwanted pregnancies, except the odd f-up.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure why not. I'm positive that the majority will ask for what I believe in: no interference with 1st trimester abortions, 2nd trimester abortions requriing some oversight, and no 3rd, unless the life of the mother is in danger, or in case of rape. Would you and all other Christians be satisfied with that result?

I would accept the result if and only if you get a different ruling that you would be willing to abide by that result.

NO changing the rules after the referendum has started if the results are not in your favour, as common here in Canada.

"I won by the rules, but the rules always change when I win. "

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
I haven't formulated my own opinion, so expect me to criticize the opinions of both sides, to put the to test, sort of speaking.

Same here.

[Ben Kenobi]

St. Swithin:

potentially thinking, living, air-breathing human being

Not potentially living. If the unborn were already dead, why would one need an abortion? You are either dead or living.

should have the right to say what can live in her body and what can't.

Good point. What is the unborn? If the unborn is a person, then she too has the right to do what she would with her body.

If it were solely the man's decision, he would be forcing a woman to endure 9 months of physical suffering and encumberment for his benefit only,

I'm cheap. Why should I have to pay for a child for the rest of my life? There is no reason to assume that an abortion has no benefits for men. It's a way to have sex without ever having to worry about a baby, and best of all, you don't have to have the surgery or wear a condom. What could be better for men?

Why should the man get a say in how that woman's life will progress for the next 9 months? Women don't necessarily have a say in the man's life, and he bears none of the responsibility or burden.

It takes two to make a baby. This is why the man has a responsibility to take care of his lover, and her child. So if you say the man ought not to have any say, why should he stick around?

work for Heidi Fleiss and then hire herself out as a human incubator, because that's all she'd have left.

Hey, no one forced you to have sex. One of the consequences of sex is pregnancy. Therefore your analogy is moot. No one is forcing a woman to get pregnant.

the world's already as f'd up as it's going to get.

Why work for a better world if you've already given up? Why bother with taking care of these kids, when the irresponsible woman should have had an abortion? Abortion is corrosive to care for children, it is only when it is no longer an option that people will start to seriously consider funding alternatives such as adoption.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
For a start there are too many people on this planet in the first place, so getting rid of a few unwanted ones is a step in the right direction if you ask me.

You know, if you said that anywhere except an abortion thread...

Think about that statement for a bit, will you?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's precisely the former status of women. Do you believe that society has the right to abitrarily classify people as non-persons?

The glaring problem with this argument is the following, if you never have the right to not define anything as a person, does this mean you need to define sperm and Chimpanzees for that matter as humans? You can't define something as a person without making some sort of decision in the first place. After all, the first one has to potential to become a human being, and the second one in its adult stage not only has DNA extremely similar to humans, but arguable is capable of more sophisticated thoughts than a newborn human. If you can't define ANYTHING as non-human you end up with all plants and animals having all the rights of people.