Roe v Wade: an interesting article from Philosophy Now.

[Patroklos]

If we allow the concept of God's involvment in creation of life as the basis for "unalienable rights" guarunteed by the Constitution (which I do agree with personally), what does that do about secular government.

I could see that spilling into a host of issues, school prayer, government funded private religious schools...

[Buck Birdseed]

Surely more abortions would empower black people more?

A lower birth rate is a good thing as far as power is concerned because less resources are spent on raising unwanted children.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

My opinion hasn't changed. I'm still pro-choice.

My opinion hasn't changed. I'm still con-Agathon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
My opinion hasn't changed. I'm still pro-choice.

My opinion hasn't changed. I'm still con-Agathon.

What could change the opinions of a blind fanatic like you who can't understand the obvious?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Rubber and glue sticking to you.

[Buck Birdseed]

The point the section about procreation is missing is that the reason we allow mentally handicapped people to procreate is not the inalienable right to equality but the fact that doing otherwise would be unjust as it would grant a group less power based on their identity.

The same argument is, of course, the one I prefer for being pro-choice. Since pro-lifers are all right-wing, wouldn't it make sense that like all other right-wing policies it lessens the power of an oppressed group?

[Jon Miller]

I am prolife

am I rightwing?

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So you are saying you are committing genocide againt yourselves?

Speer isn't Black. He's half-Arab, half-white, all wannabe.

[Buck Birdseed]

You're just weird.

[Al B. Sure!]

wannabe? i have never once claimed to be black. i dont see why people just assume it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Gepap, fortunately, my hispanic sisters, for whatever reasons, seem to have relatively few abortions as compared to Black women. thank god for that.

the problem Patroklos is that usually, we're talking about fairly young women here who have been mis-educated by Democrat-controlled local, urban school districts and a pro-abortion media which causes many Black women to not realize the full implications of their actions until it is too late.

like the second article said, too few Black community leaders (like preachers, etc.) have talked about this issue. Reggie White is probably the only one with some fame (and who takes a football player too seriously? )

"The full implications"? If your sisters listened to those liberals they would not be getting pregnant as often-since they would practice safe sex- but you conservatives act like if people didn;t have sex, so you demand sex ed be cut, and thus allow for more abortions by sticking your fingers in your ears and going blah, blah, blah.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey Albert:

Thanks for taking all the flames.

I'll be back, just going to grab something toeat.

[Ben Kenobi]

A lower birth rate is a good thing as far as power is concerned because less resources are spent on raising unwanted children.

BB:

You assume that there are no benefits to the community from raising these children. Children may be a burden on their parents for the first part of their lives, but what about afterwards? When they grow up, they will contribute to the community. That's the biggest tragedy, that black people will not have a say in the US, if they continue to kill off their children.

Albert hits the nail on the head with Margaret Sanger, who wanted to eliminate blacks because she believed them to be ain inferior race. When the organisation that she started disproportionately targets black women for abortions, what are we to think?

And, yes, preachers should talk more about this. Ever preacher I talk to, says that it's not in my backyard.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.kahane.org/political/2.html

Regarding Jews in Israel and abortion in Israel.

The date of article is back in 1991, so the numbers will be higher.

Abortions (11/91)
Translated by Lenny Goldberg
Abortions In Israel: More Than a Million Victims in 47 Years

This column is dedicated to one of the most shocking, yet relatively undiscussed subjects - abortions in the State of Israel. There is an organization called "Efrat" whose primary goal is to increase the number of births of Jewish children in Israel. This group, which works with wonderful "msirus nefesh" in fighting the astronomical number of abortions in Israel, asked us to write about this subject for Parshat Shmot. Considering the critical nature of the matter, we are more than happy to fulfill this request. The fact is that he who remains quiet concerning the issue of elective abortions becomes a partner to this atrocious mass murder.

As society increasingly depicts abortions as representing"progress" and "womens rights", the statistics regarding it have becomemore and more staggering. According to "Efrat", more than 1,000,000 children have been killed since the beginning of the State. Yes, a genuine holocaust - and no one cares. According to a recent study, 60% of women who gave birth at Hadassah Hospital in Har HaZoftim admitted than they underwent an abortion "out of convenience" in the past. When the former Minister of Health Dr. Sadan took it upon himself to fight against this phenomenon, playing a short film for the members of the Israeli Knesset depicting the abomination of abortions in Israel, and comparing this legal mass murder to the Holocaust in Europe, the Knesset members jumped out of their skin. What enraged them so? The murder of the fetuses? Of course not! What shocked these bleeding hearts was the fact that Mr. Sadan made the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust. He was forced to step down and relinquish his duties.

What is particularly fascinating, though, is the entire leftist, liberal approach to the subject. From their point of view, the more o nesupports abortions, the more "enlightened" that person is. You may ask: How does mass murder sit so well with humanitarian enlightened types? It's quite simple! You see, the killing of a fetus is an expression of "freedom over one's body", feminism, and progressive advanced society! And what about the fetuses right to live? That is not relevant to the modern and progressive.

While every decent person would agree that child abuse is abhorrent, suddenly it becomes legitimate and even fashionable to kill a child in his mother's womb. Technically speaking, harming a child one second after he leaves his mother's womb is demented, but killing it a second before leaving his mother's womb is "freedom over her body". This gross perversion of morality is the result of morals that are dictated by man and not God. Not long ago, it was even reported that in certain gynecological clinics that perform abortions, dogs eat the remains of the baby after it has been grated from his mother's womb.

Pay attention, dear readers. When Baruch Goldstein (may G-d avenge his blood), a doctor by profession, killed thirty of the Arab enemy in the Cave of the Patriarchs in order to prevent more non-stop spilling of Jewish blood, the liberal left was enflamed, condemning the act as the worst atrocity committed in the last few hundred years. On the other hand, when there is an agreement among doctors to kill 1,000,000 fetuses - 60,000 murders per year - that, my friends, is "progress". There cannot be a more concrete example to display the unbridgable gap between Judaism and western culture: That which is seen in Judaism as heinous murder is considered by them to be progress, and that which is considered in Judaism as right and just is seen by them as heinous murder. Two completely opposite worlds with completely opposing concepts.

The following are passages that portray the magnitude of this atrocity, claiming more victims per year than all the traffic accidents and wars in Israel put together:


"The Tiniest Human Being"
Story of a Doctor: "Many years ago, after anesthetizing the woman for the sake of halting the pregnancy from outside the womb (second month), I held in my hand the tiniest human being ever seen. The fetus wasi mpeccable - complete and transparent. It was a male full of energy swimming in the sac of water, adjoined by the umbilical cord to the wall of the sac. The miniature human being was completely developed - long and narrow fingers, feet and toes. Its skin was practically transparent. Its arteries and veins stood out until the tips of his fingers. The body was completely alive and was in no way similar to the pictures of fetuses that I had seen in the past. When the sac was opened, his life was terminated instantaneously, and he looked just like one would expect a fetus to looklike at this stage - lifeless." (Dr. Paul N. Rockwell)


"80 Cents Short"
Story of a Chief of Staff: "I was born in Tel Adashim. The date was under dispute, until my father and the head of the village determined: January 11, 1929. I left my mother's womb to breathe the world's air because my parents were....too poor. Totally impovershed. Four children came before me, and my father could not provide for them. That is why my parents decided to spare me from such poverty and put an end to me - in my mother's womb. But we were so poor that that my father couldn't come up with the two liros necessary to perform the abortion. Through great effort my father was able to collect one liro and 20. He urged the doctors to do the abortion and he would pay the 80 grushim at a later date - but the doctors refused. No credit allowed, and a son was born. Now there were five children in the needy family. There were days when my parents would say jokingly: "This kid is worth two liros?" (Story of former Chief of Staff, Rafael Eitan)

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

That is an interesting arguement. If one defines personhood at ensoulment, which is a religious matter, then the state cannot rule one month more valid than any other, because ensoulment has to do with one's religious beliefs.

The problem is that most prolifers do not use ensoulment as a valid argument against abortion.


From Aggie's link:

Abortion is murder. The hidden premise here is that the unborn life, from its conception, constitutes a legal person. Even among those who profess this, however, few adhere to its literal truth. The equation of abortion with murder logically entails its banning in all circumstances - including to save the mother's life, or to end a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Yet according to a 2000 Los Angeles Times poll, 85% of Americans would allow abortions if the mother's physical health is at risk, 54% if her emotional health is at risk - numbers impossible to reconcile with the 57% who claim that abortion is murder.

Considering the high levels of argumentation in the article, this one is a strawman. Just because all 'prolifers' do not adhere to the same concept does not render the concept of abortion as muder incorrect. It only means that people are inconsistent. This is an ad-hominem fallacy.