Does the "average American" agree with Michael Moore?

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you want to get away from funding PP clones, you are going to have to apply the word abstinence. PP will bill itself as promoting, 'safe' sex, but they don't really have an interest in lowering the abortion rate.

My friends who work at Planned Parenthood, and my wife who is training to perform abortions for them, would vehemently disagree. They would love to reduce the number of abortions they perform, believe it or not. Abortions represent a failure of their primary goals.

[Ben Kenobi]

shawnmcc:

against passing "morality" laws, including ones affecting consenting sex, substance use (vs. abuse), etc. ? I err on the side of freedom, so I will continue to be pro-choice.

Sorry. I would rather not be free, if it means we must continue to sacrifice our children in order to have this transient freedom. If it is a morality law to protect unborn children, then I fully support such a restriction.

This restriction has nothing to do with the other issues you throw into the mix, with substance abuse and consented sex. The issue of abortion should not be conflated with these sideshows designed to camouflage the issue.

They often come from homes with no books, only a TV... only role models come from mass media, advertising, and peers in the same situation...parents have minimal time working multiple low-wage jobs...or who don't give a crap about them, and the kids know it.

And how many of these problems will be solved by abortion? Will abortion make these parents better, will it feed these children and take care of them?

If the anti-abortion groups worked as hard in programs like this, ...I'll bet they could have cut the teenage abortion rate/unwanted pregnancies in half.

Yes, but we would still be killing babies, and what is worse, we have done nothing to change the situation, other than to apply a band-aid to the problem. We do not need abortion, we need to get rid of abortion, before we can really deal with these other social problems.

But instead of the instant gratification of the protest,

30 years does not seem instant gratification to me. It has been a long slog.

By the way, you didn't mention your youth involvement/credentials Ben? Don't tell me about involvement with kids in the local Church, I'm talking working with the at-risk kids.

Irrelevant to the issue. I could boast of my accomplishments, but right now, they mean squat to what has actually been accomplished in either Canada or the US.

I agree, there are prolife organisations, in the form of crisis pregnancy centres designed to help women with their pregnancies, yet so many people will not go to them? Why? So long as women see abortion as the easy way out, they are not going to take the help available to help them through their pregnancy.

In fact, she states it will be neither cheap nor easy. Go do some volunteer work with the adolescents, for multiple hours a week, and then run your mouth about "...cheap and easy."

Shawn, please re-read my post. I do not mean to say that what you do is cheap and easy. What I do say is that many young women see abortion as the cheap and easy way out.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What's so special about birth?

What's so special about conception? Why not pick some point when the fetus might be viable outside the womb? How about "quickening" -- I think lots of people historically have considered that the beginning of life.

Heck, if it's our responsibility to give life to as many people as possible, why not require everyone to procreate as much as possible? Oh, wait, that's pretty much what the Catholic stance on contraception does.

Heck, why not require polygamy, so as to make sure that no one is left out of the procreating frenzy? Oh, wait, the Mormons allow that.

We can either draw a line nowhere, which almost noone would agree with, or we can draw a line arbitrarily somewhere. My arbitrary line might not be drawn in the same place as your arbitrary line. I have my own beliefs about abortion, but it ticks me off when anyone acts as if there's some sort of empirical, objective way to decide when a person begins to exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

My friends who work at Planned Parenthood, and my wife who is training to perform abortions for them, would vehemently disagree. They would love to reduce the number of abortions they perform, believe it or not. Abortions represent a failure of their primary goals.

Their primary goal has become providing abortions. If they are so opposed to the notion of abortion, why do they provide them at all?

[Ben Kenobi]

What's so special about conception? Why not pick some point when the fetus might be viable outside the womb? How about "quickening" -- I think lots of people historically have considered that the beginning of life.

We have advanced beyond the medieval period where the only tools we had to detect pregnancy could only find quickening. Even then, they did not consider quickening to be the beginning of life, but merely, when they could confirm that human life has begun. This leaves the door open for technological improvements, to give people much better information about reproduction, and fetal development.

This is what is so special about conception, because this is the earliest point, where we can detect a new human life forming, with a genetic code distinct from the parents.

Heck, if it's our responsibility to give life to as many people as possible, why not require everyone to procreate as much as possible? Oh, wait, that's pretty much what the Catholic stance on contraception does.

Contraception and abortion are seperate issues. We do not have a responsibility to give life to as many people as possible, but to protect human life where it has already arisen.

when anyone acts as if there's some sort of empirical, objective way to decide when a person begins to exist.

Then refute the argument that personhood begins at conception. Flailing will not assist your case.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Then refute the argument that personhood begins at conception. Flailing will not assist your case.

Fine. Define what makes a person. A set of chromosomes isn't it. Is a chimpanzee of 2 years old a person? It has more intelligence and 'character' than a foetus.

How about a guide dog? It will have formed relationships with groups of people, be loved, can show affection, and demonstrate limited intelligence. Does it have more persona than an embryo?

[DinoDoc]

If we are going to go into the realm of sentience, can you tell me why we abhore the killing of newborn babies since they lack that characteristic?

[Ben Kenobi]

It has more intelligence and 'character' than a foetus.

IMHO, the chimpanzee has more intelligence and character than most Australians.

Try again.

It will have formed relationships with groups of people, be loved, can show affection, and demonstrate limited intelligence. Does it have more persona than an embryo?

Why does being loved have anything to do with personhood? Just because someone does not love you, does not mean that they can kill you.

Same with relationships. Do you consider a hermit not to be a person?

Showing affection? Again, the hermit example.

Finally, limited intelligence is arbitrary, because you have not specifically defined limited intelligence.

But here's the key, even if the unborn child currently lacks these abilities, so does a person in a coma. Therefore, the important thing is not whether someone is currently able to perform these tasks, but whether they have the intrinsic capacity to do these things. Leave an unborn child alone, and they will soon be able to do all of these things. Everything the child needs to grow and develop, beyond food and shelter, comes at conception.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


IMHO, the chimpanzee has more intelligence and character than most Australians.

Try again.

I'm sure the Australians here will be pleased at your unwarranted and inaccurate slur on their characters.

Leave a foetus alone and it will do what, exactly? It might grow to full term, it might be stillborn.

A person in a coma- an adult person or a child, do you mean? From a family, with attachments, with relationships, taking part in society?

Your hermit example is preposterous, given that the hermit had already formed relationships- if you can't define what you mean by personhood, why not just say so?


Instead of resorting to emotive irrelevant attacks on nationalities.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

I really do think Australians are more intelligent than a chimpanzee, but for me to do so requires me to define intelligence as something more than a matter of opinion, something you have failed to do.

Leave a foetus alone and it will do what, exactly? It might grow to full term, it might be stillborn.

Death comes to us all. It does not make us less of a person just because we may die in the future.

It will have formed relationships with groups of people

Relationships require input from more than one person, as such, cannot provide adequate protection for the individual rights accorded to a person.

I have already defined personhood, as human life, indicated from the point of conception onwards. You have yet to attack the argument, but have instead preferred to cite your own criterion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
molly:

I really do think Australians are more intelligent than a chimpanzee, but for me to do so requires me to define intelligence as something more than a matter of opinion, something you have failed to do.

I have already defined personhood, as human life, indicated from the point of conception onwards. You have yet to attack the argument, but have instead preferred to cite your own criterion.

Leaving aside the personal slur issue, you haven't actually 'defined' personhood as human life, you've simply stated your opinion that it is.

At which point was I meant to be defining intelligence? I'm simply stating some of the things that might be mentioned in a definition of 'personhood'.

What constitutes a person? As opposed to 'what are the criteria for a foetus?'. Is an anencephalic foetus a person?

It is after all only your 'opinion' that a foetus is a person.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Then refute the argument that personhood begins at conception. Flailing will not assist your case.

Personhood begins when a person is theoritically able to receive nourishment on its own. A fetus is entirely dependent upon the mother for survival, and only the mother can maintain its life. While it's in the womb - its the mother's choice whether to continue supporting the process of cell division or not, and the government has no role telling her what to do.

[General Ludd]

What's all this abortion nonsense doing here?

[Ben Kenobi]

Personhood begins when a person is theoritically able to receive nourishment on its own. A fetus is entirely dependent upon the mother for survival, and only the mother can maintain its life. While it's in the womb - its the mother's choice whether to continue supporting the process of cell division or not, and the government has no role telling her what to do.

What about an infant? An infant is dependent upon her mother for sustenance, therefore is the mother justified in leaving the child in a dumpster?

[Ben Kenobi]

Osweld:

Sava troll about 17 posts in started the ball rolling. Middling efficiency for a threadjack.

Molly:

What constitutes a person?

All living human beings ought to be considered persons. That's pretty much it. Human beings come into existence at conception, where their genetic code provides the instructions necessary for the unborn child to grow and develop.

All other criterions do not work because they exclude some persons, or they fail to exclude the unborn.

Now, if you want to say that it is not enough to be human to be considered a person, then you need a pretty good counterargument to show why this should be so.