Political Crossfire Forums

[Ek0nomik]

con·cord (knkôrd, kng-)
n.

1. Harmony or agreement of interests or feelings; accord.
2. A treaty establishing peaceful relations.

So this debate will be neverending. How can we prove when life begins? Well, we can take a scientific approach, and find that perhaps the zygote has no way of feeling anything, or even being able to maintain any mental capability. Some scientific textbooks also say that life begins as soon as the sperm and egg meet. We can also take a religious approach. It is an approach which I choose not to take, but people do take that approach. Many people believe life begins at conception. When you ask them why, their reason isn't because of scientific evidence or reasoning. It's because of their faith and their belief towards religion.

Which side is right? Well, if we can't prove either side, it's hard to really determine which side deserves the absolute right under law. Both sides make great points, but there will never be a complete agreement.

I think the only thing that can be done is some sort of middle between the two. Allow abortions for rape at absolutely anytime. Allow abortions for all females within a certain number of weeks. It's really the only logical view I can take towards it. I disagree with late term abortions. I think they should be illegal, because the child is obviously alive at this point. During the early weeks of pregnancy however, life, if it even exists at this point, is very discrete.

I'd like to hear from people who both completely agree and completely disagree on this idea, and from people who would agree if one minor thing changed, or disagree if one minor thing I said changed.

Let me add my own two cents here...

Keep in mind, as far as the time frame for abortion goes, 88% of all abortions occur within the first 12 weeks (National Abortion Federation 2000), and 50% of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999). The majority of abortions occuring during this time frame of pregnancy is what really makes me lean towards the Pro-Choice view. With the knowledge we know as to what constitutes human life, I think these facts prove for the right to go to the pregnant woman.

Alright, let us discuss.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Ek0nomik wrote: I think the only thing that can be done is some sort of middle between the two.

That is, more or less, what will occur eventually anyway, as soon as Roe v. Wade collapses.

That's the only reason I bother arguing this issue, since I know that my position is nearly as extreme as can be found within American society. By advancing my own position and forcing people to clean up their logic, I'm hoping that this eventual compromise can be made better.

Not necessarily leaning more towards my position-- though I can hope-- but generally more socially beneficial and more acceptable to the majority than either of the iconic positions are today.

Ek0nomik wrote: Allow abortions for rape at absolutely anytime.

This is morally inconsistent garbage. The argument against late-term abortion-- or abortion in general-- is that the fetus has enough moral value to be legally protected.

Shall we begin adjusting the value of individual human lives by the circumstances of their conception? At what point does the rape-child become morally equal to the offspring of two loving parents?

You already allow abortion-on-demand up to an arbitrary deadline; that is sufficient protection for victims, and allows us to handle this issue ethically and compassionately without establishing a double-standard.

On a practical level, allowing the "rape exception" merely creates unequal legal protection as it allows abortion-on-demand, without deadlines, for any wouldn't-be mother who is willing to commit perjury.

Ek0nomik wrote: Allow abortions for all females within a certain number of weeks.

This would be agreeable to the majority of Americans. The problem isn't that abortion is allowed at all, but that it is allowed far later than most Americans are comfortable with.

Ek0nomik wrote: Keep in mind, as far as the time frame for abortion goes, 88% of all abortions occur within the first 12 weeks ... and 50% of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks...

Seems to me that 16 weeks would be an acceptable deadline, then. That's fully ten weeks earlier than the 26 which is our current legal standard.

Could easily go as early as 12 without causing too many problems, in my opinion. Earlier than that, I don't believe it allows sufficient time for the mother to discover the pregnancy and consider her options.

[joe christian]

Ek0nomik wrote: con·cord (knkôrd, kng-)
n.

1. Harmony or agreement of interests or feelings; accord.
2. A treaty establishing peaceful relations.

I think the only thing that can be done is some sort of middle between the two. Allow abortions for rape at absolutely anytime. Allow abortions for all females within a certain number of weeks. It's really the only logical view I can take towards it. I disagree with late term abortions. I think they should be illegal, because the child is obviously alive at this point. During the early weeks of pregnancy however, life, if it even exists at this point, is very discrete.

I'd like to hear from people who both completely agree and completely disagree on this idea, and from people who would agree if one minor thing changed, or disagree if one minor thing I said changed.

Alright, let us discuss.

Rather than only allow 9 life-tenured judges to decide the procreative rights of all men and women in America, let each state bear the responsibility for the increase or decrease of it's own population.

Who cares if women can't get abortions in South Dakota?

If women can't smoke in some states or cities, then women can't get abortions in others.

[joe christian]

Ek0nomik wrote: con·cord (knkôrd, kng-)
n.

1. Harmony or agreement of interests or feelings; accord.
2. A treaty establishing peaceful relations.

I think the only thing that can be done is some sort of middle between the two. Allow abortions for rape at absolutely anytime. Allow abortions for all females within a certain number of weeks. It's really the only logical view I can take towards it. I disagree with late term abortions. I think they should be illegal, because the child is obviously alive at this point. During the early weeks of pregnancy however, life, if it even exists at this point, is very discrete.

I'd like to hear from people who both completely agree and completely disagree on this idea, and from people who would agree if one minor thing changed, or disagree if one minor thing I said changed.

Alright, let us discuss.

Rather than only allow 9 life-tenured judges to decide the procreative rights of all men and women in America, let each state bear the responsibility for the increase or decrease of it's own population.

Who cares if women can't get abortions in South Dakota?

If women can't smoke in some states or cities, then women can't get abortions in others.

[Ek0nomik]

joe christian wrote: Rather than only allow 9 life-tenured judges to decide the procreative rights of all men and women in America, let each state bear the responsibility for the increase or decrease of it's own population.

Who cares if women can't get abortions in South Dakota?

If women can't smoke in some states or cities, then women can't get abortions in others.

Are you truthfully relating smoking bans to abortion? First off, I am against the smoking bans occuring throughout the country. Secondly, I am expecting the states to take responsibility of the abortions that occur within their boundaries.

[Ek0nomik]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: This is morally inconsistent garbage. The argument against late-term abortion-- or abortion in general-- is that the fetus has enough moral value to be legally protected.

You're right Korimyr. I got caught up in my argument. I do believe the rape cases should be limited to a specific time frame as well. My mistake in my argument. :!oops:

[Korimyr the Rat]

Ek0nomik wrote: You're right Korimyr. I got caught up in my argument.

There's no cause to blush. Our lawmakers make the same mistake all the time, and without having your excuse.

[Gilbert1908]

Ek0nomik wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: This is morally inconsistent garbage. The argument against late-term abortion-- or abortion in general-- is that the fetus has enough moral value to be legally protected.

You're right Korimyr. I got caught up in my argument. I do believe the rape cases should be limited to a specific time frame as well. My mistake in my argument. :!oops:

I agree that the argument to permit abortion in the case of rape is morally inconsistent.

But if offered the chance to end or reduce abortion except in the case of rape or incest (no more than 1% according to the Alan Guttmacher Inst. of Planned Parenthood), which would be the greater immorality to refuse to accept those terms and permit 90%+ to continue or accept those terms and live with the loss of 1%. I don't live in a perfect world and I can accept some moral inconsistancy in if it replaces moral deprevation.

[steen]

Ek0nomik wrote: I think the only thing that can be done is some sort of middle between the two. One that reduces abortions, but don't infringe on the woman's right to control her own body. THAT is the middle ground.

Quote: Allow abortions for rape at absolutely anytime. Allow abortions for all females within a certain number of weeks. It's really the only logical view I can take towards it. It really is not acceptable. if we want fewer abortions, it is not done through controlling and enslaving the woman. It is done through prevention and support.

If you don't want the woman to get pregnant, help her with better sex-ed and better, cheaper (free?) contraception that works better. THOSE are the avenues for bringing down the number of abortions.

And then, IF the woman is pregnant, look at the reasons why women abort. these have been published many times, and nearly ALL of them can be remedied through support. Financial support, educational support, job/employment support etc., they will ALL help the woman deciding that she can keep the pregnancy.

It is resistance to these reasonable remedies that are keeping the number of abortions as high as they are. If they were implemented, the number of abortions would plummet and become negligible.

THAT is the middle ground. vacillating about how much we will enslave and control women is NOT middle ground.

Quote: I disagree with late term abortions. I think they should be illegal, because the child is obviously alive at this point. What do you mean with "late term"? If you are talking about 3rd trimester, then the number of abortions are vanishingly small, and are nearly exclusively done per medical emergencies or fetal demise. Are you going to intrude in serious medical decisions that will harm women?

Quote: During the early weeks of pregnancy however, life, if it even exists at this point, is very discrete. Well, it is mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue, if that is what you mean. But this is true all the way to past the 26th week.

Quote: I'd like to hear from people who both completely agree and completely disagree on this idea, and from people who would agree if one minor thing changed, or disagree if one minor thing I said changed. I disagree with your support for controlling and enslaving women, even if it is "only a little bit." Common ground is NOT reached through "only a bit of enslavement. It is reached through finding other avenues for bringing down the number of abortions.

[steen]

joe christian wrote: Who cares if women can't get abortions in South Dakota? Women in South dakota cares. But maybe you don't give a damn about the women?

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I don't live in a perfect world and I can accept some moral inconsistancy in if it replaces moral deprevation. To claim abortion is a result of "moral deprivation" is bogus, it is stark misogyny and evidence of a theocratic goal of oppressing and controlling women.

[Gilbert1908]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I don't live in a perfect world and I can accept some moral inconsistancy in if it replaces moral deprevation. To claim abortion is a result of "moral deprivation" is bogus, it is stark misogyny and evidence of a theocratic goal of oppressing and controlling women.

This is an example of why I do not reply to steen and can not take him seriously.

This is a classic use of out of context pasting. My reference to moral deprivation would be MINE if I did not take, what as prolife advocate a vast improvement over the present status quo.

I NEVER name call or generalize those who choose abortion or advocate it. I do not seek to criminalize ANYONE who seeks abortion. And I do not selectively paste partial statements to mislead others about my opponents positions, it is unworthy of me and anyone seeking an honest intelligent discussion. Here is what I said within context

Gilbert1908 wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: This is morally inconsistent garbage. The argument against late-term abortion-- or abortion in general-- is that the fetus has enough moral value to be legally protected.

You're right Korimyr. I got caught up in my argument. I do believe the rape cases should be limited to a specific time frame as well. My mistake in my argument. :!oops:

I agree that the argument to permit abortion in the case of rape is morally inconsistent.

But if offered the chance to end or reduce abortion except in the case of rape or incest (no more than 1% according to the Alan Guttmacher Inst. of Planned Parenthood), which would be the greater immorality to refuse to accept those terms and permit 90%+ to continue or accept those terms and live with the loss of 1%. I don't live in a perfect world and I can accept some moral inconsistancy in if it replaces moral deprevation.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: This is an example of why I do not reply to steen and can not take him seriously.

This is a classic use of out of context pasting. My reference to moral deprivation would be MINE if I did not take, what as prolife advocate a vast improvement over the present status quo. As if that is clear, even now. Not my fault that your post is open to misinterpretation. Blaiming me for that seems unwarranted.

[joe christian]

steen wrote: joe christian wrote: Who cares if women can't get abortions in South Dakota? Women in South dakota cares. But maybe you don't give a damn about the women?
Real women don't get abortions. Only feminists do, and I don't give a damn about feminists anywhere in America now that they have collectively killed over 45 million American babies.

It's time for feminazis to pay for their crimes against humanity, and the depopulation and dehumanization of the American people.

[liford]

Way to tell women what's best for them.

"What are you doing out of that kitchen!?"
-Joe Christian

[joe christian]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I don't live in a perfect world and I can accept some moral inconsistancy in if it replaces moral deprevation. To claim abortion is a result of "moral deprivation" is bogus, it is stark misogyny and evidence of a theocratic goal of oppressing and controlling women.
Why should American men be controlled, dominated and oppressed by killer women who in former times would have rightly and properly be branded as witches?

The opposite of a theocracy is a demonarchy, or demonocracy.

It was bad enough when men had queens ruling over them. Now we have dykes on bikes.

[joe christian]

liford wrote: Way to tell women what's best for them.

"What are you doing out of that kitchen!?"
-Joe Christian
Well, you know monotheism is basically a Father-based religion even though the RC's exalt Mother Mary to Queen of Heaven.

Seriously though, if the only way fascist US femmies can achieve women's liberation is to massacre 45 million American babies within 35 years, I say it is time to start locking them up again.

Felons don't vote.

[Ek0nomik]

Joe Christian, I will admit I can't prove when life begins. We all have our evidence to help lead us to a proper decision, but I haven't seen you dish any out yet. Since you're an extremist on this topic, can you please explain to me why you think life has begun at that point?

Please don't abandon this question by saying Faith either. Faith doesn't cut it in an argument.

[Gilbert1908]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is an example of why I do not reply to steen and can not take him seriously.

This is a classic use of out of context pasting. My reference to moral deprivation would be MINE if I did not take, what as prolife advocate a vast improvement over the present status quo. As if that is clear, even now. Not my fault that your post is open to misinterpretation. Blaiming me for that seems unwarranted.

I suggest in the future if you are unclear you do not LEAP to unwarrented conclusions for the sake of your own bomb throwing and simply seek to understand by ASKING A SIMPLE QUESTION? Then if you are unsatisfied with the answer bomb away.

[joe christian]

Ek0nomik wrote: Since you're an extremist on this topic, can you please explain to me why you think life has begun at that point?
At whatever point a pregnancy is determined, there would be no need for an abortion if there was no embryonic or fetal life growing.

Abortion, by definition is the ending of a pregnancy by destruction of fetal life.

Abortionists are violent extremists. I'm just a passive observer.