Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Youre right, you can never force anyone else to agree with what you believe. I will never agree with abortion....but as it stands right now, I have to live with it. The same would be true if it were the other way around and abortion were illegal, or R v W was overturned. Pro-Choice people would have to live with it, but not agree with it.

Agreed... with the first part. I believe that laws should not impede any freedoms of the people, and making abortions illegal would do exactly that. While I am personally against abortions, I have no right to impose that belief on others, which is why I advocate on the side of pro-choice, but I would be against any law that prevents that choice from occurring.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: You do have morals, I hope. And if you do, then you must regard the taking of the life of another person as imoral. However by your standards you do not regard a fetus to be another person and therefore it is not immoral (by your standards) to remove it. What if at some point in the future technology advances to the point where you could put yourself into the mind of a fetus and find that it does have thoughts and a personality of its own and that it is not just a piece of tissue, but a sentient person. How then would you feel about having killed it? I with my beliefs do not have such a worry.

It seems like you believe what you believe out of fear of being wrong. The way I see it, human fallacy is something that cannot be reversed, or changed. Having said that, believing in something out of fear is not a belief at all, it is cowardice. I apologize if this is inflammatory, but saying that you have no fear of being wrong is not a belief at all. You are simply taking the easy road out, as opposed to standing up for your own rights. Saying that if I was wrong, then I would be endorsing murder is completely dishonorable and cowardly. On top of that, even if I was able to be put in an embryo's position, then it still would not prove anything. I am a sentient being, and an independent thinker. My mind in another body would change nothing but my physical state.
You don't care about being wrong? I disagree with you, caring about being wrong shows integrity. And no I am not talking about the apearance of being wrong, I actually care about being wrong. And there are some things that are worse to be wrong about than others, such as abortion it is better to be wrong on the side of life than on the side of death, or as our president put it "It is better to err on the side of life"

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: That is incorrect. The forbidden fruit factor does not work here. Sex has been more and more uncensored as time goes on, and one can see the direct result in that more people are having pre-marital, and promiscuous sex. Does seeing two people have sex help the situation? No. Does hearing from your parents the responsibilities that come with sex, help? Yes. If thats what you are talking about, about parents being afraid to talk with their children about sex, then I am in agreement with you.

And yet the censorship does not keep pace with the evolving psyche of America. Freedom is something that many people are seeking and taking control of. Censorship only works against that. Besides, that was a hypothese, not a factual claim. Much in the same way "God" is not a factual claim.
I don't know quite to make of this statement except that I agree with you. Government should not censor anything. (If you don't believe I believe this check out the last page of the the thread "Where does the justification for the FCC come from" in the constitutional law forum.) However I do believe parents have the responsibility to censor their children from viewing sexually charged television and movies as it desensitizes them to risky sexual behavior. Rather parents should talk openly about the responsibilties of a sexually active individual.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: But it is not an extension of the mother, she only provides nourishment and a safe place to grow. She has no control of its individual limbs or it's thought patterns. It is indeed and individual person.

Again, just a difference of opinion. Regardless of what an embryo actually is, the fact still stands that a law forbidding abortions would go against the individual choice of the mothers. If she provides nourishment and a safe place for the potential child to become a full child, then why does she not have the right to choose not to provide that?
It seems you have come down on the side of protecting the rights of an individual, if it could be proven through empirical evidence that an unborn fetus was indeed a person would you protect their rights as well? Specifically the right to life?

[WsTxRedRaider06]

LostSoul3412 wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Youre right, you can never force anyone else to agree with what you believe. I will never agree with abortion....but as it stands right now, I have to live with it. The same would be true if it were the other way around and abortion were illegal, or R v W was overturned. Pro-Choice people would have to live with it, but not agree with it.

Agreed... with the first part. I believe that laws should not impede any freedoms of the people, and making abortions illegal would do exactly that. While I am personally against abortions, I have no right to impose that belief on others, which is why I advocate on the side of pro-choice, but I would be against any law that prevents that choice from occurring.

Which is where we disagree. I believe that laws should not impede any right to life that we, born or unborn, should have. IMO. Which is why I say I have to live with it, while not agreeing with it...

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: You don't care about being wrong? I disagree with you, caring about being wrong shows integrity. And no I am not talking about the apearance of being wrong, I actually care about being wrong. And there are some things that are worse to be wrong about than others, such as abortion it is better to be wrong on the side of life than on the side of death, or as our president put it "It is better to err on the side of life"

Caring about being wrong on issues of anything the general public interpreters as "fact" would perhaps show integrity, but caring about being wrong on the issue of philosophy and belief only shows cowardice. If you are over-concerned with being on the winning side, even if you're wrong, says to me that you do not have the individual strength to stand up for yourself. Fearing about the consequences of a belief is taking the easy way out, instead of confronting the issue head on.

alclarkey wrote: I don't know quite to make of this statement except that I agree with you. Government should not censor anything. (If you don't believe I believe this check out the last page of the the thread "Where does the justification for the FCC come from" in the constitutional law forum.) However I do believe parents have the responsibility to censor their children from viewing sexually charged television and movies as it desensitizes them to risky sexual behavior. Rather parents should talk openly about the responsibilties of a sexually active individual.

That is something we can both agree on. It is the parent's own decision on how to raise their child. If they don't want their child to see pornography, then tell them not to watch it, but don't take it off the air. The same issue applies to abortion, if you don't want one, then don't have one, but don't make it illegal for the rest of society. Individual choice, individual responsibility.

alclarkey wrote: It seems you have come down on the side of protecting the rights of an individual, if it could be proven through empirical evidence that an unborn fetus was indeed a person would you protect their rights as well? Specifically the right to life?

You are correct that I stand for the rights of the individual, and not just the right to an abortion. As I stated earlier, I am in no way supporting abortions, but I am supporting the option of having one. Even if it could be proven that an embryo was a free-thinking, independent entity (which it is not, it is the potential to become a free-thinking, independent entity), it would still be up to the mother to decide what to do with her child. Like I said earlier, if you don't like pornography, don't watch it; if you don't like abortions, don't have one, but you have no right to tell others that they can't.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: You don't care about being wrong? I disagree with you, caring about being wrong shows integrity. And no I am not talking about the apearance of being wrong, I actually care about being wrong. And there are some things that are worse to be wrong about than others, such as abortion it is better to be wrong on the side of life than on the side of death, or as our president put it "It is better to err on the side of life"

Caring about being wrong on issues of anything the general public interpreters as "fact" would perhaps show integrity, but caring about being wrong on the issue of philosophy and belief only shows cowardice. If you are over-concerned with being on the winning side, even if you're wrong, says to me that you do not have the individual strength to stand up for yourself. Fearing about the consequences of a belief is taking the easy way out, instead of confronting the issue head on.
This is not the means I use to reach my conclusion that abortion is wrong. It is the means I use to challenge the opposition on their death before life stance.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: I don't know quite to make of this statement except that I agree with you. Government should not censor anything. (If you don't believe I believe this check out the last page of the the thread "Where does the justification for the FCC come from" in the constitutional law forum.) However I do believe parents have the responsibility to censor their children from viewing sexually charged television and movies as it desensitizes them to risky sexual behavior. Rather parents should talk openly about the responsibilties of a sexually active individual.

That is something we can both agree on. It is the parent's own decision on how to raise their child. If they don't want their child to see pornography, then tell them not to watch it, but don't take it off the air. The same issue applies to abortion, if you don't want one, then don't have one, but don't make it illegal for the rest of society. Individual choice, individual responsibility.
And that argument is fallacy. Thats like saying, if you don't want to have incest with your child don't have incest with your child. We as a society care about the safety of children, and if you believe the unborn to be a life, then you should care about them too, and protect them from the forces that would do them harm.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: It seems you have come down on the side of protecting the rights of an individual, if it could be proven through empirical evidence that an unborn fetus was indeed a person would you protect their rights as well? Specifically the right to life?

You are correct that I stand for the rights of the individual, and not just the right to an abortion. As I stated earlier, I am in no way supporting abortions, but I am supporting the option of having one. Even if it could be proven that an embryo was a free-thinking, independent entity (which it is not, it is the potential to become a free-thinking, independent entity), it would still be up to the mother to decide what to do with her child. Like I said earlier, if you don't like pornography, don't watch it; if you don't like abortions, don't have one, but you have no right to tell others that they can't.
I most certainly do. If I believe a fetus is a separate person with rights, then you better be damn sure I'm going to try and protect it. Its not case of "it's my property, I can do what I want with it" a child is not your property, it is it's own person, it depends on you to learn how to live life, but it is not your property.

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: This is not the means I use to reach my conclusion that abortion is wrong. It is the means I use to challenge the opposition on their death before life stance.

That may be how you intemperate it, but I see it more of a conflict between individual choice and government dictating.

alclarkey wrote: And that argument is fallacy. Thats like saying, if you don't want to have incest with your child don't have incest with your child. We as a society care about the safety of children, and if you believe the unborn to be a life, then you should care about them too, and protect them from the forces that would do them harm.

That is exactly what I'm saying. If you don't want to have sexual relations with your child, then don't have sexual relations with your child. Endorsing responsibility of society to control the actions of the individual goes against any form of independent liberty for the sake of communal morals. Personally, I would not want to surrender any of my rights to society. The way I see, that parent has a responsibility to their child, and no one else's. Raise your child the way you want to raise your child, but don't tell another individual how to be a parent.

alclarkey wrote: I most certainly do. If I believe a fetus is a separate person with rights, then you better be damn sure I'm going to try and protect it. Its not case of "it's my property, I can do what I want with it" a child is not your property, it is it's own person, it depends on you to learn how to live life, but it is not your property.

In a capitalistic society, everything is property. Even human beings are considered "human resources" by the government; the same government that you would have deciding the difference between right and wrong. Morals are entirely subjective, and any attempt to make them into an objective law would alienate the rights of the other group to their own beliefs. While you argue the protection of "life", I argue the protection of rights. I am not saying that an unborn child is property, I am saying that the mother has a choice to not have a child. Also, to try and protect the rights of a potential life over the rights of the mother shows a clear inequality in the social structure. It is not your right, nor your say, to protect another's rights without their consent. You have no authority over another individual, and as much as you would like to save another embryo, that is not your call to make. You have no right to tell another person what to do with their own body, and any authority you have does not extend past your own life. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, that's as far as you can go. Anything farther would be infringing on the rights of another individual, and would work against any liberty and freedom already established in our society.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: This is not the means I use to reach my conclusion that abortion is wrong. It is the means I use to challenge the opposition on their death before life stance.

That may be how you intemperate it, but I see it more of a conflict between individual choice and government dictating.
Of course it's a conflict between individual choice and government, and personally I think the government should stop you from harming your child.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: And that argument is fallacy. Thats like saying, if you don't want to have incest with your child don't have incest with your child. We as a society care about the safety of children, and if you believe the unborn to be a life, then you should care about them too, and protect them from the forces that would do them harm.

That is exactly what I'm saying. If you don't want to have sexual relations with your child, then don't have sexual relations with your child. Endorsing responsibility of society to control the actions of the individual goes against any form of independent liberty for the sake of communal morals. Personally, I would not want to surrender any of my rights to society. The way I see, that parent has a responsibility to their child, and no one else's. Raise your child the way you want to raise your child, but don't tell another individual how to be a parent.
You have probably just solidified about 20 people for my side with this line of reasoning. Well done.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: I most certainly do. If I believe a fetus is a separate person with rights, then you better be damn sure I'm going to try and protect it. Its not case of "it's my property, I can do what I want with it" a child is not your property, it is it's own person, it depends on you to learn how to live life, but it is not your property.

In a capitalistic society, everything is property.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the principles of Liberty. People can not be the property of the government or any other individual unless they violate the rights of someone else, or they give up the right to themselves voluntarily. A fetus has neither harmed a person, nor voluntarily given up it's rights. It is nobody's property but it's own.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Even human beings are considered "human resources" by the government; the same government that you would have deciding the difference between right and wrong.
Not my government. Never. Never. Never. If this is so, then I will see them on the battlefield.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Morals are entirely subjective, and any attempt to make them into an objective law would alienate the rights of the other group to their own beliefs.
While I agree that morals should not be forced on anyone, the rights of the people need to be protected. A fetus is a person. It has rights. They need to be protected. While the mother also has rights, her right to life isn't being violated by having a fetus growing inside her, only her right to convenience. When it comes to protecting rights, the right to life trumps the right to convenience.


LostSoul3412 wrote: While you argue the protection of "life", I argue the protection of rights.
Life is a right!

LostSoul3412 wrote: I am not saying that an unborn child is property, I am saying that the mother has a choice to not have a child.
Yes, it's called abstinence.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Also, to try and protect the rights of a potential life over the rights of the mother shows a clear inequality in the social structure. It is not your right, nor your say, to protect another's rights without their consent.
And this is unfair, because a fetus has no means of giving consent

LostSoul3412 wrote: You have no authority over another individual, and as much as you would like to save another embryo, that is not your call to make.
It sure as hell is. I will not stand by and continue to watch the slaughter of 1.5 million innocents a year. I will not.

LostSoul3412 wrote: You have no right to tell another person what to do with their own body,
When what they do to their body causes the death of another, then yes I do.

LostSoul3412 wrote: If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, that's as far as you can go. Anything farther would be infringing on the rights of another individual, and would work against any liberty and freedom already established in our society.
Abortion is an infringement. It infringes on the most basic human right, the right to life. It infringes on those who have no defense against it. It is the most horrid infringement on liberty one can do to a person.

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: You have probably just solidified about 20 people for my side with this line of reasoning. Well done.

I am not concerned about "sides". I am an individual, with my own beliefs, and I would take on the entire world to stand up for them. Public followings do not matter to me, only what is inside my heart.

alclarkey wrote: This shows a basic misunderstanding of the principles of Liberty. People can not be the property of the government or any other individual unless they violate the rights of someone else, or they give up the right to themselves voluntarily. A fetus has neither harmed a person, nor voluntarily given up it's rights. It is nobody's property but it's own.

No it doesn't, it shows the bleak truth that is America. Corporations and the government take away our rights everyday. The government restricts our true liberty with laws, while corporate America restricts our economic power by struggling to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The unborn child does not have rights until it is an independent entity. While is is inside the mother, attached to an umbilical cord, and is completely dependent on the mother to sustain life, then the mother should have the right to choose not to provide for it. When the child is born, that's a different story. It all comes back down to choice, and the mother should have her say on what to do with her own body.

alclarkey wrote: Not my government. Never. Never. Never. If this is so, then I will see them on the battlefield.

Then grab the gun the 2nd amendment allows you to have. Isn't it surprising how one amendment of the constitution that actually gives rights instead of taking them away is one of the move controversial laws in American government? But then I ask, who gave the government the power to say that we did not have that right already? Regardless, the American government is more concerned with profits than people. An example is that we've had alternate fuel technology since the late '80's, but oil lobbyists and the current president were working to prevent that. Money over people, profit over benefit.

alclarkey wrote: While I agree that morals should not be forced on anyone, the rights of the people need to be protected. A fetus is a person. It has rights. They need to be protected. While the mother also has rights, her right to life isn't being violated by having a fetus growing inside her, only her right to convenience. When it comes to protecting rights, the right to life trumps the right to convenience.

I am not arguing on the issue of convenience at all. Not once have I ever brought it up. I am arguing for the rights of the mother to choose what to do with their own child. First, an embryo is not a person, it is the potential to become a person. Second, her right to life could be violated by having a child through economic hardships, and the inability to provide for the child. There are a lot more factors to consider with children than just "life or death". There is also the quality of that life, and the quality of the parental skills.

alclarkey wrote: Life is a right!

Is death also a right? Americans may have the right to life, but the right to die is something that is conspicuously absent. Regardless, there is no life, or death in this situation. It is stopping the potential from become actual. The mother has a right to choose whether or not she has a child.

alclarkey wrote: Yes, it's called abstinence.

:sigh1:. We cannot expect 100% of the population to remain abstinent to avoid a child. Sex is not just about pleasure. It is an expression of love between two people that connects them both physically and spiritually. To be connected to another person is something that is the true testament to the power of love. Perhaps people feel they are ready for such a connection with their relationship, perhaps not. Again, we cannot expect 100% of the population to follow that reason to engage in intercourse. There is no doubt in my mind that people have sex for pleasure. Regardless, it still happens, and we cannot expect the rest of the world to abstain from having sexual relations, we can only work to make it cop-able through free contraceptives, sexual education classes, and abortions if necessary. To simply expect the problem to go away is immature and arrogant. We must accept that sex is something that is done on a regular basis for reasons other than to produce children.

alclarkey wrote: And this is unfair, because a fetus has no means of giving consent

But the mother does, take expressed, certain consent over the possibility to have consent. Real life over potential life.

alclarkey wrote: It sure as hell is. I will not stand by and continue to watch the slaughter of 1.5 million innocents a year. I will not.

So do your part to stop it by not having an abortion. You still cannot tell other people to follow your same moral code. Stopping the potential and stopping the actual are two very different things. There is no slaughter here, there is only the ending of what could become life in the future. As much as it may kill you inside, people have a right to control their own lives and their own bodies. As much as you are opposed to that, that is liberty. Liberty is the ability to live your own life, even if it pisses off other people. Notice how I have not stated my personal opinion on abortion in these last few posts. Yet, you bring it up in nearly every sentence. Liberty comes before moral subjection. If you don't like the way another person is running their life, then tough, that's liberty. Don't like, too bad, that's America.

alclarkey wrote: When what they do to their body causes the death of another, then yes I do.

That seems pretty arrogant, to have the ability to tell another person what to do with their own body. You have absolutely no authority over any of this. Let me give you my definition of maturity: Maturity is knowing just how insignificant you really are. Maturity is accepting other people's choices even if you disagree with them. No one is saying that abortions should be mandatory, if you don't want one, you have to choose not to have one. If another person wants one, they have a right to choose to have one. Two different people, two different options, two different circumstances, two different morals. I see nothing wrong with a policy of "pro-life", except for the fact that they are trying to push their morals into law. That is where I draw the line. To force your morals on another individual, and to say that you have the authority to do so is about as arrogant and ignorant that you can get. You have no more authority over another person any more than I do, which is none. All that we can do is express our views, and try to have others agree with us, not force it upon them. Consentual agreement is all that can, and should, be achieved, not government oppression and a suspension of liberty to fit the morals of another group. If you don't want abortions, then advocate against abortions, but don't try to push it into law. Don't try to assert yourself over others, therefore subjugating them. Don't even think for an instant that you have any power over anyone else, because that is the greatest evil, and the greatest immaturity on the planet. Who the hell are we as individuals to say that we have the authority to tell people how to think or act!? We're no one. We are specks on the great cosmic plane of the universe, and the sooner we realize that, then the sooner we can end arrogance and the thought that one man is better than the other. Every individual is born (not conceived) equal, and no one has any right to say otherwise.

alclarkey wrote: Abortion is an infringement. It infringes on the most basic human right, the right to life. It infringes on those who have no defense against it. It is the most horrid infringement on liberty one can do to a person.

Again... it is not a human yet, therefore it has no rights. Telling people they cannot have an abortion is another infringement on liberty. It infringes on the individual's right to think for themselves, and be responsible for their own body. The greatest atrocity against liberty is telling someone else how to think. What good is life when you cannot be your own person? What quality of life is there when the people cannot think for themselves? Is that really life at all? By forcing morals on other individuals, you are taking away their right to choose. Choice is the ultimate foundation to liberty. You can campaign on either side of their choice, but you cannot take away the choice itself. Liberty is founded on choice, and any infringement on that is an infringement on the basis of freedom altogether.

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: Of course it's a conflict between individual choice and government, and personally I think the government should stop you from harming your child.

I'm not going to get into that here, my views on governemnt is a different issue for a different day.

[spearsy23]

Why is the two year old sitting in the lobby by itself? Why will you not have time to grab the embryos and then the kid as you run through the lobby? If you didn't have time to do both then you wouldn't have time to grab teh embreyos either way.


BTW i picked child because the embryos aren't alive. More of them can be harvested, people don't harvest two year olds.

[LostSoul3412]

The Underground wrote: BTW i picked child because the embryos aren't alive. More of them can be harvested, people don't harvest two year olds.

Agreed, very well said.

[ReelBigSpikey]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Real Life>PotentialLife>Convenience.....

The mother is not faced with death. She is faced with a loss of convenience and burdened with responsibility, which she herself brought on.

This thread is non-sense. All it shows is that when faced with a burning building, and a choice to make on who to save the life of, people would choose the 2 year old over a bunch of embryos.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion. In this case, its the death of a 2 year old, vs the death of potential life. In abortion, it is the death of potential life vs......?? Not the death of the mother. The convenience of the mother. There is hardly a comparison between the two. IN one you have to chose between TWO sides dying. In abortion, only ONE side is faced with death. This thread, and the poll, show nothing at all about Pro-Lifers and their argument against abortion. It only takes up space on the inter-web.... Quite contrary. Perhaps the most used pro-life argument I see is that an embryo is "a child." They argue that a developing human at any stage is equivalent to an infant. Those "It's a Child, Not a Choice" bumper stickers are a prime example.

This thread very clearly demonstrates that even pro-lifers think that argument is trash. And that argument is at the very core of the pro-life movement.

An embryo is NOT EQUIVALENT to a child.

[alclarkey]

ReelBigSpikey wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Real Life>PotentialLife>Convenience.....

The mother is not faced with death. She is faced with a loss of convenience and burdened with responsibility, which she herself brought on.

This thread is non-sense. All it shows is that when faced with a burning building, and a choice to make on who to save the life of, people would choose the 2 year old over a bunch of embryos.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion. In this case, its the death of a 2 year old, vs the death of potential life. In abortion, it is the death of potential life vs......?? Not the death of the mother. The convenience of the mother. There is hardly a comparison between the two. IN one you have to chose between TWO sides dying. In abortion, only ONE side is faced with death. This thread, and the poll, show nothing at all about Pro-Lifers and their argument against abortion. It only takes up space on the inter-web.... Quite contrary. Perhaps the most used pro-life argument I see is that an embryo is "a child." They argue that a developing human at any stage is equivalent to an infant. Those "It's a Child, Not a Choice" bumper stickers are a prime example.

This thread very clearly demonstrates that even pro-lifers think that argument is trash. And that argument is at the very core of the pro-life movement.

An embryo is NOT EQUIVALENT to a child.

Lets turn your argument on its head then. If you had the choice between a serial rapist, and the embryo's which would you choose?

[Prole]

alclarkey wrote: ReelBigSpikey wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Real Life>PotentialLife>Convenience.....

The mother is not faced with death. She is faced with a loss of convenience and burdened with responsibility, which she herself brought on.

This thread is non-sense. All it shows is that when faced with a burning building, and a choice to make on who to save the life of, people would choose the 2 year old over a bunch of embryos.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion. In this case, its the death of a 2 year old, vs the death of potential life. In abortion, it is the death of potential life vs......?? Not the death of the mother. The convenience of the mother. There is hardly a comparison between the two. IN one you have to chose between TWO sides dying. In abortion, only ONE side is faced with death. This thread, and the poll, show nothing at all about Pro-Lifers and their argument against abortion. It only takes up space on the inter-web.... Quite contrary. Perhaps the most used pro-life argument I see is that an embryo is "a child." They argue that a developing human at any stage is equivalent to an infant. Those "It's a Child, Not a Choice" bumper stickers are a prime example.

This thread very clearly demonstrates that even pro-lifers think that argument is trash. And that argument is at the very core of the pro-life movement.

An embryo is NOT EQUIVALENT to a child.

Lets turn your argument on its head then. If you had the choice between a serial rapist, and the embryo's which would you choose?
I'd save the serial rapist. They are still a person, whereas an embryo is not. I don't think that this is a case where vigilatiasm is appropriate; of course, were I to know that the rapist would not be facing justice after the fire, I'd probably save the embryos. A person is almost always more worthy to me than a non-person, no matter what atrocities that person has committed.

[The Grandmaster]

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: This is not the means I use to reach my conclusion that abortion is wrong. It is the means I use to challenge the opposition on their death before life stance.

That may be how you intemperate it, but I see it more of a conflict between individual choice and government dictating.
Of course it's a conflict between individual choice and government, and personally I think the government should stop you from harming your child.

A agree alclarkey. But then why are you so concerned about abortion, even at an early stage, when there is no child in question to be harmed?

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: And that argument is fallacy. Thats like saying, if you don't want to have incest with your child don't have incest with your child. We as a society care about the safety of children, and if you believe the unborn to be a life, then you should care about them too, and protect them from the forces that would do them harm.

That is exactly what I'm saying. If you don't want to have sexual relations with your child, then don't have sexual relations with your child. Endorsing responsibility of society to control the actions of the individual goes against any form of independent liberty for the sake of communal morals. Personally, I would not want to surrender any of my rights to society. The way I see, that parent has a responsibility to their child, and no one else's. Raise your child the way you want to raise your child, but don't tell another individual how to be a parent.
You have probably just solidified about 20 people for my side with this line of reasoning. Well done.

I doubt it. He was simply trying to tell you that the governments arbitrary view of what is “moral” need not be forced by penalty of jail upon the citizens of the country. He said he doesn’t want any of his rights surrendered to society. He never claimed one has a right to kill, as you are suggesting he has. He only is implicitly claiming a person has a right to their own body, which is the case, despite the anti-choicer’s continued belief that a person’s body belongs to the government. It hasn’t been demonstrated to that a human being begins at conception, and so we aren’t justified in stripping a person’s right to their body from them at merely this point Conception is simply another step in the process that will eventually produce a person, but no more singular than many other steps along the road.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ] alclarkey wrote: I most certainly do. If I believe a fetus is a separate person with rights, then you better be damn sure I'm going to try and protect it. Its not case of "it's my property, I can do what I want with it" a child is not your property, it is it's own person, it depends on you to learn how to live life, but it is not your property.

In a capitalistic society, everything is property.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the principles of Liberty. People can not be the property of the government or any other individual unless they violate the rights of someone else, or they give up the right to themselves voluntarily. A fetus has neither harmed a person, nor voluntarily given up it's rights. It is nobody's property but it's own.

Then by your reasoning a women is no one’s properly but her own, and she has the right to deny someone else the use of her property if she does not want them to utilize it. This is even assuming “someone else” exists, which to a point in what we are discussion, no one else does.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Morals are entirely subjective, and any attempt to make them into an objective law would alienate the rights of the other group to their own beliefs.
While I agree that morals should not be forced on anyone, the rights of the people need to be protected. A fetus is a person.

A fetus is debatable, but even then I’m not so sure. An embryo however, we know has not been demonstrated to be a person by scientific consensus. We do not give rights to those things that aren’t people.

alclarkey wrote: It has rights. They need to be protected.

I notice you, as all the anti-choicers, fail to mention the rights of the mother as well. Of course when a person does something so horrible as to have sex, why this atrocity makes them no longer a person with rights, correct? There is no such thing as a ‘right to another person’s body”

alclarkey wrote: While the mother also has rights, her right to life isn't being violated by having a fetus growing inside her, only her right to convenience.

It is more than convenience. To a women who does not want to bear a child, and is forced to, this is as bad as death. Remember alclarkey, when a women is being raped, her right to life isn’t necessarily being violated, merely her right to “convenience” as you put it.

alclarkey wrote: When it comes to protecting rights, the right to life trumps the right to convenience.

Same old stale argument I’ve heard again and again, but if this were the case alclarkey, why then, if a person was in need of a kidney for a life saving procedure, we could simply take it from you by force now couldn’t’ we, after all, didn’t you just say the right to life trumps the right to convenience?

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: While you argue the protection of "life", I argue the protection of rights.
Life is a right!

But taking up residence in another's property, or body is not.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I am not saying that an unborn child is property, I am saying that the mother has a choice to not have a child.
Yes, it's called abstinence.

Yes, that is one way, correct. But that way denies her the fun and enjoyment and pleasure of having sex, and so it isn’t a very good way to go, since it is the denial of great pleasure. Another way to choose not to have a child is to deny permission for the cellular matter to continue to grow inside her against her will.

And abstinence does not guarantee you won’t get pregnant, unless you are going to tell me that no women has ever gotten pregnant from rape.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Also, to try and protect the rights of a potential life over the rights of the mother shows a clear inequality in the social structure. It is not your right, nor your say, to protect another's rights without their consent.
And this is unfair, because a fetus has no means of giving consent

Exactly. Neither does a tree or a fork for a magic marker. Things that are not people don’t give consent. This isn’t that hard.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: You have no authority over another individual, and as much as you would like to save another embryo, that is not your call to make.
It sure as hell is. I will not stand by and continue to watch the slaughter of 1.5 million innocents a year. I will not.

And you don’t have to, so don’t worry. You merely have to stand by and watch the elimination of cellular matter with human DNA which is not a person. Since I don’t here you complaining about cancer surgery, this should be no problem for you.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: You have no right to tell another person what to do with their own body,
When what they do to their body causes the death of another, then yes I do.

Not necessarily. It isn’t your place to deal out justice, even if a person was actually being killed. You are not in a position to call yourself “the court” or “justice itself.” But luckily, up until a point, we don’t have to worry about this part of the discussion, because no one is being killed. It is merely the removal of cellular matter with human DNA, not unlike cancer in many ways.

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, that's as far as you can go. Anything farther would be infringing on the rights of another individual, and would work against any liberty and freedom already established in our society.
Abortion is an infringement. It infringes on the most basic human right, the right to life. It infringes on those who have no defense against it. It is the most horrid infringement on liberty one can do to a person.

Not up until a point. But enslaving a person’s body by penalty of jail is certainly infringing upon a right.

[ReelBigSpikey]

alclarkey wrote: ReelBigSpikey wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Real Life>PotentialLife>Convenience.....

The mother is not faced with death. She is faced with a loss of convenience and burdened with responsibility, which she herself brought on.

This thread is non-sense. All it shows is that when faced with a burning building, and a choice to make on who to save the life of, people would choose the 2 year old over a bunch of embryos.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion. In this case, its the death of a 2 year old, vs the death of potential life. In abortion, it is the death of potential life vs......?? Not the death of the mother. The convenience of the mother. There is hardly a comparison between the two. IN one you have to chose between TWO sides dying. In abortion, only ONE side is faced with death. This thread, and the poll, show nothing at all about Pro-Lifers and their argument against abortion. It only takes up space on the inter-web.... Quite contrary. Perhaps the most used pro-life argument I see is that an embryo is "a child." They argue that a developing human at any stage is equivalent to an infant. Those "It's a Child, Not a Choice" bumper stickers are a prime example.

This thread very clearly demonstrates that even pro-lifers think that argument is trash. And that argument is at the very core of the pro-life movement.

An embryo is NOT EQUIVALENT to a child.

Lets turn your argument on its head then. If you had the choice between a serial rapist, and the embryo's which would you choose? I've never seen a bumper sticker that says "It's a serial rapist, not a choice." Have you?

I seem to remember it being "It's a child, not a choice."

You are setting up a false analogy. My post directly compared a child and an embryo, which pro-lifers love to do. So don't try to wriggle out of this one with fallacies.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: ReelBigSpikey wrote: An embryo is NOT EQUIVALENT to a child. Lets turn your argument on its head then. If you had the choice between a serial rapist, and the embryo's which would you choose? I would save the person, the sentient being. So of course, I would save the rapist. Mindless tissue can never rise to equal status with a person.

[WsTxRedRaider06]

Quote: Quite contrary. Perhaps the most used pro-life argument I see is that an embryo is "a child." They argue that a developing human at any stage is equivalent to an infant. Those "It's a Child, Not a Choice" bumper stickers are a prime example.

This thread very clearly demonstrates that even pro-lifers think that argument is trash. And that argument is at the very core of the pro-life movement.



Youre right, Most Pro-Lifers see an embryo in the same light they see a child.....Thats why I said this thread was pointless....IN abortion, your choice either results in death, or life....If you choose to save the life of the unborn, there is no death.....In this example, your choice results in death no matter what you choose.....This isnt the case with abortion, as you can chose to save the embryo, and nothing else dies in the process... If you can only save one, obviously one is going to die....It might as well be a 2 year old, and a serial rapist...or a serial rapist and a priest..... a priest and a bag lady.....you can only save one, so one is going to die....you save the bag lady, the priest is going to die....no matter what form of life you put in the burning building, whether its an embryo, a bag lady, a 2 year old, etc., one is going to die.....So how does this show anything about the pro-life argument??

[spearsy23]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Quote: Quite contrary. Perhaps the most used pro-life argument I see is that an embryo is "a child." They argue that a developing human at any stage is equivalent to an infant. Those "It's a Child, Not a Choice" bumper stickers are a prime example.

This thread very clearly demonstrates that even pro-lifers think that argument is trash. And that argument is at the very core of the pro-life movement.



Youre right, Most Pro-Lifers see an embryo in the same light they see a child.....Thats why I said this thread was pointless....IN abortion, your choice either results in death, or life....If you choose to save the life of the unborn, there is no death.....In this example, your choice results in death no matter what you choose.....This isnt the case with abortion, as you can chose to save the embryo, and nothing else dies in the process... If you can only save one, obviously one is going to die....It might as well be a 2 year old, and a serial rapist...or a serial rapist and a priest..... a priest and a bag lady.....you can only save one, so one is going to die....you save the bag lady, the priest is going to die....no matter what form of life you put in the burning building, whether its an embryo, a bag lady, a 2 year old, etc., one is going to die.....So how does this show anything about the pro-life argument??

All of the hypotheticals proposed in this thread are stupid. Why can the priest not get out himself? or the bag lady? or the two year old? the only one that should actually need saving is the embryos.

[Plodder]

Quote: Mindless tissue can never rise to equal status with a person. yeat you are somehow blathering away at us...