What party am I?

[Mr. Harley]

Jon, and if you do - outlaw abortion after that age when the child could be removed - do you support paying more taxes to cover the cost of removing those babies, and putting them in foster care, etc. since YOU are the one forcing them to "have the child" instead of abortion. Hell, the right won't even pay for quality health care for poor kids, let alone this absurd scenario.

[Jon Miller]

we pay (And should pay more) for care of kids and adults who can't pay for themselves..

this would just be one more payment...

and when it is the life involved..

I dont' understand how you and Imran can get so utilitarian about murder, I mean almost everyone is willing to pay for police to help protect lives and property...

and I do support universal health care.. but if you go to the emergency room (even now, in the US), if your life is going to be lost.. they have to treat you

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you want to make a 12 year pregnant girl (there ARE 13 year olds having children) who has been raped not have abortion available?

Why then don't we allow this raped 12-13 year old girl to kill her child after the child is born? The truth is that abortion allows many of these children to continue being abused as the abuser would force her to get the abortion. Access to abortion doesn't benefit the child, rather access to care for her and her child will not only help her have the child, but stop the abuse. The most common example of young girls being raped comes from abuse from family members.

Or will you permit, for example like India, to have religious law set by that community, mostly, so for example Moslems can have multiple wifes and Hindu's not? And then will you permit a woman to become Muslim and have an abortion within the first 100 days - the standard in that religion from my understanding.

No, muslims are opposed to abortion right from the start because they believe that the child in the womb is no less a child then one outside of the womb. You said earlier that my assessment is true to what the Catholic church teaches, but you must also understand, that this is what I believed before I became Catholic. To believe that the unborn child is a person, does not require you to be a Catholic,

That was the point The Emperor Fabulous was making. You can be anti-abortion while realizing the dangerous precedent legislating your morality makes, i.e. pro-choice.

Very true. However, if you believe that the unborn child is a person, that is not a religious perspective. The state is permitted to protect vunerable people from being killed, and would be permitted in protecting unborn children from being killed in the womb. We legislate morals to prevent murder, and many other things, and this would fall in the same category.

Let God sort it out, and keep freedom alive.

Small comfort for all the children killed through abortion. Where is their freedom?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jon, and if you do - outlaw abortion after that age when the child could be removed - do you support paying more taxes to cover the cost of removing those babies, and putting them in foster care, etc. since YOU are the one forcing them to "have the child" instead of abortion.

So, what would you say if someone came to you and said, if you aren't willing to take care of my baby, I am going to shoot her? Is the person who shoots the baby justified in doing so because the other person declines?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't care if its living or not. It is physically depending on the body of another person to live. If it can live outside the womb, then let it do so. If it can't, then it dies. So sorry.

Oh, what about the child nursed by her mother? Isn't she physically depending on the body of another person to live?

The problem with viability as the standard, is that viability can, and has shifted, in response to changes in technology, not changes in children. Viability is an external rather than an intrinsic measure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, what about the child nursed by her mother? Isn't she physically depending on the body of another person to live?

Doesn't have to. Can use formula from birth.

that viability can, and has shifted, in response to changes in technology

I fail to see that as a problem. If technology can make the kid can survive outside the womb earlier and earlier, then it allows the state to step in earlier. I don't care about the intrinsic quality of the kid. What matters if he can survive outside of the mother.

I dont' understand how you and Imran can get so utilitarian about murder

'Killing', please... 'murder' is unlawful death. And yes, I guess I am fairly utilitarian about it. Unlike Ben, I'm not a pacifist and sometimes I think we should go to war if the benefits outweigh the downsides (ie, a utilitarian view to human life).

[Zkribbler]

Once again, both sides are not addressing the critical underlying question: Is a fetus human life?

Pro-lifers assume that it is, and they argue from there. And, if their assumption is correct, then their argument is nearly impossible to counter. Pro-lifers argue that because a fetus is human life, it is due the governmental protections provided to humans, i.e. not to be killed.

Pro-choicers assume that a fetus is not human life. If their assumption is correct, their argument is nearly impossible to counter. Pro-choicers argue thatbecause a fetus is not human life, the government has no authority to protect it.

As to whether a fetus is life, pro-lifers take the too-easy stance that: a fetus is living, it is human, and therefore it is human life. This argument is overly simplistic because the same thing can be said about human white blood cells. Distinguish the scientific difference between a fetus and a white blood cell, and we'll have something to talk about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

both sides are not addressing the critical underlying question: Is a fetus human life?

Well, aside from the fact that I don't care if it is or isn't .

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Once again, both sides are not addressing the critical underlying question: Is a fetus human life?

Pro-lifers assume that it is, and they argue from there. And, if their assumption is correct, then their argument is nearly impossible to counter. Pro-lifers argue that because a fetus is human life, it is due the governmental protections provided to humans, i.e. not to be killed.

Pro-choicers assume that a fetus is not human life. If their assumption is correct, their argument is nearly impossible to counter. Pro-choicers argue thatbecause a fetus is not human life, the government has no authority to protect it.

As to whether a fetus is life, pro-lifers take the too-easy stance that: a fetus is living, it is human, and therefore it is human life. This argument is overly simplistic because the same thing can be said about human white blood cells. Distinguish the scientific difference between a fetus and a white blood cell, and we'll have something to talk about.

I'm actually not a pro-lifer, and frankly I hate these debates, but the standard counter to that is that a white blood cell isn't going to naturally develop into a new human whereas a fetus will. It's a point not without merit.

[Jon Miller]

umm, I am suggesting using brainwaves as a deciding line..

that is what we use for everything else... why don't we use it with regards to human children as well?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

both sides are not addressing the critical underlying question: Is a fetus human life?

Well, aside from the fact that I don't care if it is or isn't .

you and Che (other person who thinks similiarly) are ghoulish

and your attitudes are a big part of what is wrong with the world today

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

you and Che (other person who thinks similiarly) are ghoulish

Are you anti-war in every way? Anti-death penalty?

[Theben]

Take a pragmatic POV. Since the fetuses aren't wanted, most of them will not be wanted as children. Society already has enough headaches w/o adding a larger underclass of castaways to it's list of problems.

[Dinner]

Pro-military is not the Republican party. Pro-Defense spending and pro-pork for big defense contractors is. The Democrats are normally the ones who try to increase pay and benifets for individual soldiers while it was Reagan who slashed medical coverage for retirees and it was Bush who has resisted Congress's attempts to give bigger wage increases. Funny, I don't recall them ever worrying about the size of a Halliburton contract dispite them running into the tens of billions.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

i am gonna mentionthis to the prlifers that wanted the teri lady off life support. The fetus in utero the brain is not fully developed in the second trimester of pregnancy. there fore you have a terri schiavo, a body with a heart beat and half a brain, depending on others to help her, how is this different then the fetus aborted in the first trimester?, since most know this is when the abortions are the higest. How is this fetus any differnt then the brain impaired lady?? I ask you