Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

In quite a few abortion debates, and on this forum in particular, claims of discrimination against a person are sometimes made from both those who are for and against abortion's legality. Being anti-choice has been called misogynistic. Being pro-choice has been called discrimination against preborn humans. I submit, however, that neither side (for the most part) truly wishes to discriminate, nor does either side hold either person in higher regard. Rather, it is issue of which right(s) they hold in higher regard, coupled with a simultaneous belief that their interpretation of which right(s) supercede the other right(s) should be enshrined in law.

There are several different qualifications for what makes someone a person, but unless it is birth itself which makes someone a person (which I do not believe anyone believes), we all agree that in some point during pregnancy, whether conception or at some later point, a preborn human becomes a person. Furthermore, we all agree that the mother is a person. Finally, we all agree that persons are all entitled to certain rights, provided they do not infringe on other individuals' rights.

Thus the issue is not of choosing which person is somehow superior, but of choosing which right takes precedent; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. It is not about deciding which person is more important and trying to shape the law based upon that interpretation, but about which right is more important.

I would like to make a request, then, that members on both sides of the fence regarding abortion's legality stop making claims of discrimination against either woman or preborn human. None of us really think that either of them is more deserving of rights because of who they are, but simply that either the right to life or bodily autonomy takes precedent over the other.

[steen]

Prole wrote: There are several different qualifications for what makes someone a person, but unless it is birth itself which makes someone a person (which I do not believe anyone believes), That is actually the finding of the SCOTUS. The law is clear that personhood begins at birth. So your belief is wrong. The US Justice system disagrees with you. I disagree with you.

Quote: we all agree that in some point during pregnancy, whether conception or at some later point, a preborn human Ah, that would be something akin to a "predead corpse," right?

Quote: becomes a person. That would be at birth.

Quote: Furthermore, we all agree that the mother is a person. Finally, we all agree that persons are all entitled to certain rights, provided they do not infringe on other individuals' rights. And the fetus is not an individual until birth.

What a convoluted argument, full of mistakes and weird assumptions. I smell an example of sophsitry coming on.

Quote: Thus the issue is not of choosing which person is somehow superior, but of choosing which right takes precedent; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. There is no right to life that overrides personal integrity. otherwise, you could be forced to give blood against your will, if it could save a life. As you cannot be compelled to do so, your argument is based on nonsense.

Quote: I would like to make a request, then, that members on both sides of the fence regarding abortion's legality stop making claims of discrimination against either woman or preborn human. Why? The pro-life agenda clearly is directed more against the woman than against abortions, or they would have supported good sex-ed, contraception and support of pregnant women long time ago. In fact, they have been fighting these, making it clear that the goal IS about "fault," discrimination and oppression rather than "life."

Quote: None of us really think that either of them is more deserving of rights because of who they are, but simply that either the right to life or bodily autonomy takes precedent over the other. Per pro-life's track record, I can not agree with your assessment.

[spearsy23]

steen wrote: Prole wrote: There are several different qualifications for what makes someone a person, but unless it is birth itself which makes someone a person (which I do not believe anyone believes), That is actually the finding of the SCOTUS. The law is clear that personhood begins at birth. So your belief is wrong. The US Justice system disagrees with you. I disagree with you.

Quote: we all agree that in some point during pregnancy, whether conception or at some later point, a preborn human Ah, that would be something akin to a "predead corpse," right?

Quote: becomes a person. That would be at birth.

Quote: Furthermore, we all agree that the mother is a person. Finally, we all agree that persons are all entitled to certain rights, provided they do not infringe on other individuals' rights. And the fetus is not an individual until birth.

What a convoluted argument, full of mistakes and weird assumptions. I smell an example of sophsitry coming on.

Quote: Thus the issue is not of choosing which person is somehow superior, but of choosing which right takes precedent; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. There is no right to life that overrides personal integrity. otherwise, you could be forced to give blood against your will, if it could save a life. As you cannot be compelled to do so, your argument is based on nonsense.

Quote: I would like to make a request, then, that members on both sides of the fence regarding abortion's legality stop making claims of discrimination against either woman or preborn human. Why? The pro-life agenda clearly is directed more against the woman than against abortions, or they would have supported good sex-ed, contraception and support of pregnant women long time ago. In fact, they have been fighting these, making it clear that the goal IS about "fault," discrimination and oppression rather than "life."

Quote: None of us really think that either of them is more deserving of rights because of who they are, but simply that either the right to life or bodily autonomy takes precedent over the other. Per pro-life's track record, I can not agree with your assessment.

Oh please, a very small percentage of pro life people wish to control women. Of course i guess we could continue this and it could be said that you hate babies, puppies, kittens, and all other things nice based on a track record. Grow up :roll:

[steen]

The Underground wrote: Oh please, a very small percentage of pro life people wish to control women. Well, that would happen to be the ones who make the policies, then. You know the movement leaders. :roll:

Quote: Of course i guess we could continue this and it could be said that you hate babies, puppies, kittens, and all other things nice based on a track record. How so?

Quote: Grow up That would indeed be my advice to the pro-lifers who are only able to make their argument through emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

[Prole]

Well, steen, your arguement seems to be based upon the logical fallacy of "It is legal, so it is right." Something being legal does not make it right, nor does something being right not mean that it is legal. Laws do not indicate morality, but rather indicate our interpretation of morality; as laws have constantly beeen changed throughout history, even becoming opposites of what they were, referring to them as a source of right or wrong is not logical.

Personally, I believe that forcing people to donate blood if it would mean saving a life would be acceptable. I see them as biologically human, and while some individuals including embyrologists have quolms with the claim that they are "human", I do not see how they can do so on a purely biological basis. So on a purely biological level, they are completely human. Whether a preborn human has any right to life, or whether that right to life overrides the mother's right to bodily autonomy, is debatable. But it is still a subject of rights.

I agree that some people attempts to reduce abortions are downright moronic; this is a symptom of the simultaneous belief that sex is wrong and should be discouraged, not because abortion isn't important. They are of course going up against tens of millions of years of evolution, and by every example of abstinence only sex ed vs comprehensive sex ed encouraging education that isn't optimal to decreasing abortion. And additionaly, I believe that some of those people believe that the woman is somehow lesser in that "She didn't keep her legs shut" or something to the like, though I don't see how such an attitude will actually decrease abortions. Intolerance to a person's decision doesn't really do much to dissuade them.

But what is it then, steen, that makes birth grant personhood? I suspect that it is independence. Well, if hypothetically, people could be independent without birth, would you think them less? Is a preborn human somehow undeserving of any rights simply because they have not been born, even though they might be otherwise exactly identical to another baby? Being born changes something' the human's dependence upon another. Beyond that, it changes nothing. That dependence only is an issue when it comes to rights, and surely, you must realize that rights are the key issue, not the person.

[spearsy23]

steen wrote: The Underground wrote: Oh please, a very small percentage of pro life people wish to control women. Well, that would happen to be the ones who make the policies, then. You know the movement leaders. :roll:

Quote: Of course i guess we could continue this and it could be said that you hate babies, puppies, kittens, and all other things nice based on a track record. How so?

Quote: Grow up That would indeed be my advice to the pro-lifers who are only able to make their argument through emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Of course, the ones you see the most are going to be the ones who scream and kick and yell and have the most radical ideas.

Well you hate babies and want them to be killed so you must hate all things nice.[/sarcasm]

It would be my advice to anyone who feels like making broad sweeping generalizations based on a few.

[joe christian]

steen wrote: Prole wrote: There are several different qualifications for what makes someone a person, but unless it is birth itself which makes someone a person (which I do not believe anyone believes), That is actually the finding of the SCOTUS. The law is clear that personhood begins at birth. So your belief is wrong. The US Justice system disagrees with you. I disagree with you.
Classifying certain human beings as non-persons or sub-humans is what the Nazis did with the Jews and what the SCOTUS did with African Americans before the Civil War. The SCOTUS can't even call itself humanist since it has historically demonstrated it's tendency to depersonalize certain human beings at times. They don't even recognize a Judeo-Christian father's will for his posterity as long as he is alive.

Quote: Furthermore, we all agree that the mother is a person. Finally, we all agree that persons are all entitled to certain rights, provided they do not infringe on other individuals' rights.
You seem to be saying that the abortionist's secular right to kill the children of Judeo-Christians is a greater right than the father's right to the life of his child, even is cases of marriage.

I bet you approve of non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriages too.

Quote: And the fetus is not an individual until birth.
If it is not an individual human being until birth, how can it be killed individually without the death of the mother? Most of those dead babies they chuck into the garbage look like individual babies to me.

Quote: Thus the issue is not of choosing which person is somehow superior, but of choosing which right takes precedent; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life.
What about the father's right to safely procreate within marriage without some adulterous abortionist deciding that he doesn't have the same reproductive rights that his wife does? What right do homosexists have to non-reproductive marriages if Judeo-Christian husbands have no reproductive rights?

Quote: There is no right to life that overrides personal integrity.
There is no such thing as personal integrity without the right to life.

Quote: otherwise, you could be forced to give blood against your will, if it could save a life. As you cannot be compelled to do so, your argument is based on nonsense.
If women can be compelled to have abortions in order to save their lives, I don't see why their husbands should not be compelled to give blood in order to save their wives lives.

Quote: The pro-life agenda clearly is directed more against the woman than against abortions, or they would have supported good sex-ed, contraception and support of pregnant women long time ago.
That's atheisitc, pagan, feminist and secular bulldung since the pro-life agenda is pro-women, pro-fertility, pro-family, pro-reproduction, pro-American population and economic growth within Judeo-Christian marriage.

Athiestic and secular abortionists are anti-Judeo-Christian misogynists.

Quote: In fact, they have been fighting these, making it clear that the goal IS about "fault," discrimination and oppression rather than "life."
Judeo-Christian and Islamic men ought to fight against atheistic and secular feminazis who advocate abortion on demand not only for themselves but for Judeo-Christian and Islamic women as well.

Judeo-Christian and Muslim men have to protect their wives and daughters from turning into witches.

[joe christian]

steen wrote: The Underground wrote: Oh please, a very small percentage of pro life people wish to control women. Well, that would happen to be the ones who make the policies, then. You know the movement leaders.
The Planned Parenthood feminists, homosexists and pro-abortionists want to control Judeo-Christian and Islamic men, their wives and daughters, by limiting the number of children in their families. Abortion agendas are atheistic and secular population control programs with a vengeance.

[joe christian]

Prole wrote: Well, steen, your arguement seems to be based upon the logical fallacy of "It is legal, so it is right." Something being legal does not make it right, nor does something being right not mean that it is legal. Laws do not indicate morality, but rather indicate our interpretation of morality; as laws have constantly beeen changed throughout history, even becoming opposites of what they were, referring to them as a source of right or wrong is not logical.
Steen's ideology fits right in with the old socialist ideals of the 'legal' commie and nazi regimes of the last century.

Quote: Personally, I believe that forcing people to donate blood if it would mean saving a life would be acceptable.
It's not necessary to force Judeo-Christians to give blood. They do it out of a sense of religious duty.

Quote: I see them as biologically human, and while some individuals including embyrologists have quolms with the claim that they are "human", I do not see how they can do so on a purely biological basis. So on a purely biological level, they are completely human.
I don't think anyone is denying the "humanity" of babies before they are born since no woman has ever conceived a pig in her womb. The trouble with abortionists is that they are Darwinists and don't see much difference between human and ape babies.

Quote: Whether a preborn human has any right to life, or whether that right to life overrides the mother's right to bodily autonomy, is debatable. But it is still a subject of rights.
Only when a bunch of atheistic and secular lawyers get involved and transfer Judeo-Christian and Islamic legal rights to atheistic and secular abortionists.

[sgtshortness]

Quote: You seem to be saying that the abortionist's secular right to kill the children of Judeo-Christians is a greater right than the father's right to the life of his child, even is cases of marriage.

I bet you approve of non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriages too.

First of all, so what if we approve of homosexual marriages?

It's not just the abortionist's right. It's the woman's right, too. It's both.

Quote: If it is not an individual human being until birth, how can it be killed individually without the death of the mother? Most of those dead babies they chuck into the garbage look like individual babies to me.

You're mixing up the definitions we're using of individual.

Quote: What about the father's right to safely procreate within marriage without some adulterous abortionist deciding that he doesn't have the same reproductive rights that his wife does? What right do homosexists have to non-reproductive marriages if Judeo-Christian husbands have no reproductive rights?

What about a woman's right to destroy the fetuses within her body? Because the fetus is within her body and she goes through childbirth, I think that the mother shoudl have more reproductive rights than the father.

Quote: otherwise, you could be forced to give blood against your will, if it could save a life. As you cannot be compelled to do so, your argument is based on nonsense.
If women can be compelled to have abortions in order to save their lives, I don't see why their husbands should not be compelled to give blood in order to save their wives lives.

Quote: That's atheisitc, pagan, feminist and secular bulldung since the pro-life agenda is pro-women, pro-fertility, pro-family, pro-reproduction, pro-American population and economic growth within Judeo-Christian marriage.

Athiestic and secular abortionists are anti-Judeo-Christian misogynists.


It's nto necessarily atheistic. I'm atheistic. I'm not pro-choice. Dicto Simpliciter logical fallacy.

What about the Judeo-Christian abortion practicers?

Quote: Judeo-Christian and Islamic men ought to fight against atheistic and secular feminazis who advocate abortion on demand not only for themselves but for Judeo-Christian and Islamic women as well.

Judeo-Christian and Muslim men have to protect their wives and daughters from turning into witches.

By doing this, you put the man's right in front of the woman's.

[sgtshortness]

joe christian wrote: steen wrote: The Underground wrote: Oh please, a very small percentage of pro life people wish to control women. Well, that would happen to be the ones who make the policies, then. You know the movement leaders.
The Planned Parenthood feminists, homosexists and pro-abortionists want to control Judeo-Christian and Islamic men, their wives and daughters, by limiting the number of children in their families. Abortion agendas are atheistic and secular population control programs with a vengeance.

No, it gives them the choice. You can't blame them for limiting the population without blaming the women who choose to get the abortions in the first place.

What's wrong with atheistic and secular?

[sgtshortness]

Quote: It's not necessary to force Judeo-Christians to give blood. They do it out of a sense of religious duty.

Well good for them (wait all of them?). Irrelevant anyways.

Quote: I don't think anyone is denying the "humanity" of babies before they are born since no woman has ever conceived a pig in her womb. The trouble with abortionists is that they are Darwinists and don't see much difference between human and ape babies.

The trouble with pro-lifers is that they are religious and see much difference between human and ape babies.

Unrepresentable sample inductive fallacy.

Quote: Only when a bunch of atheistic and secular lawyers get involved and transfer Judeo-Christian and Islamic legal rights to atheistic and secular abortionists.

Well the "atheistic and secular abortionists" (where are the statistics, anything that proves they're all atheistic/secular/whatever?) don't have COMPLETE rights. They don't abort without consent of the woman. So it's only when a bunch of Judeo-Christian women choose to go to an abortionist that aborts their babies.

[Prole]

Goodness gracious, joe christian, does the word relevance mean anything to you?

The purpose of this thread wasn't why anyone of any religious affiliation does anything, but whether or not their beliefs are based on discrimination onto either people or not.

Nazi discrimination was based upon ethnicity. The way we decide that preborn humans are not deserving of life is mental capabilities. Your comparison does not stand. And abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany.

*Prole enacts Goodwin's law and proceeds to ignore...la la la*

[joe christian]

sgtshortness wrote: Quote: You seem to be saying that the abortionist's secular right to kill the children of Judeo-Christians is a greater right than the father's right to the life of his child, even is cases of marriage.

I bet you approve of non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriages too.

First of all, so what if we approve of homosexual marriages?
You discriminate against procreative and reproductive marriages in favor of non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriages.

Quote: It's not just the abortionist's right. It's the woman's right, too. It's both.
It is only an atheistic, pagan and secular right which if the woman is not a medical doctor only gives her the choice to self-abort. 750 abortion clinics in the US do all the killing of over a million US babies a year. How come male abortionists in the US have the sexist right to kill the partially-born female babies of married Judeo-Christian men? A lot of innocent blood being spilled there.

Quote: What about a woman's right to destroy the fetuses within her body?
She doesn't have the right to it herself. She has to hire a professional baby-killer to do the dastardly deed for her.

Quote: Because the fetus is within her body and she goes through childbirth, I think that the mother shoudl have more reproductive rights than the father.
That's a perverted atheistic way of thinking. Good thing your mother didn't have such sick secular thoughts.

Quote: It's nto necessarily atheistic. I'm atheistic. I'm not pro-choice. Dicto Simpliciter logical fallacy.
If you are not pro-choice, what are you going on about? Pro-abortionism?

Quote: What about the Judeo-Christian abortion practicers?
There aren't any. Abortion is not a Judeo-Christian religious practice. It is a pagan and atheistic legal solution to the secular problem of unwanted babies.

Quote: By doing this, you put the man's right in front of the woman's.
You promote the right of male abortionists over the rights of Judeo-Christian and Islamic spouses to procreate and reproduce without secular interference in their marriage.

You put non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriage rights before the procreative and reproductive rights of Judeo-Christian spouses.

[Snarf]

joe christian wrote: steen wrote: The Underground wrote: Oh please, a very small percentage of pro life people wish to control women. Well, that would happen to be the ones who make the policies, then. You know the movement leaders.
The Planned Parenthood feminists, homosexists and pro-abortionists want to control Judeo-Christian and Islamic men, their wives and daughters, by limiting the number of children in their families. Abortion agendas are atheistic and secular population control programs with a vengeance.
God is the King of Abortions. 50% of conceptions go right down the toilet, and 10% more are aborted later on. That's a lot of Christian babies God throws away, about 5 million a year just in the U.S. alone, per year...

[joe christian]

sgtshortness wrote: joe christian wrote: The Planned Parenthood feminists, homosexists and pro-abortionists want to control Judeo-Christian and Islamic men, their wives and daughters, by limiting the number of children in their families. Abortion agendas are atheistic and secular population control programs with a vengeance.

No, it gives them the choice. You can't blame them for limiting the population without blaming the women who choose to get the abortions in the first place.
Nobody would choose to get a legal abortion if the SCOTUS had not voided all the state laws against killing babies, and abortionists were able to choose to operate legally. Only those medical doctors who refuse to heal and cure people of their illnesses and diseases "choose" to kill little innocent Judeo-Christian babies.

Quote: What's wrong with atheistic and secular?
Atheistic and secular abortionists along with feminists and pagans, are killing Judeo-Christian babies in over 750 abortion chambers across the US. 40 million so far. That's a lot of Judeo-Christian blood that atheists and secularists have spilled in the US alone.

[Snarf]

joe christian wrote: sgtshortness wrote: joe christian wrote: The Planned Parenthood feminists, homosexists and pro-abortionists want to control Judeo-Christian and Islamic men, their wives and daughters, by limiting the number of children in their families. Abortion agendas are atheistic and secular population control programs with a vengeance.

No, it gives them the choice. You can't blame them for limiting the population without blaming the women who choose to get the abortions in the first place.
Nobody would choose to get a legal abortion if the SCOTUS had not voided all the state laws against killing babies, and abortionists were able to choose to operate legally. Only those medical doctors who refuse to heal and cure people of their illnesses and diseases "choose" to kill little innocent Judeo-Christian babies.

Quote: What's wrong with atheistic and secular?
Atheistic and secular abortionists along with feminists and pagans, are killing Judeo-Christian babies in over 750 abortion chambers across the US. 40 million so far. That's a lot of Judeo-Christian blood that atheists and secularists have spilled in the US alone.
That's nothing. See above...

[steen]

Prole wrote: Well, steen, your arguement seems to be based upon the logical fallacy of "It is legal, so it is right." Something being legal does not make it right, nor does something being right not mean that it is legal. Which also was not my argument, your interpretation none withstanding. My argument was that if it is legal, then it is legal.

Quote: Laws do not indicate morality, but rather indicate our interpretation of morality; as laws have constantly beeen changed throughout history, even becoming opposites of what they were, referring to them as a source of right or wrong is not logical. Fortunately, I did not argue any such thing, so your strawman just blew away in the wind of hot and heated nonsense arguments.

Quote: Personally, I believe that forcing people to donate blood if it would mean saving a life would be acceptable. Fortunately, the US Constitution disagrees with you. But I must say you are one of the few pro-lifers who then is NOT hypocritical about the forced use of bodily resources. In THAT you get a gold-star and renewed respect from me. Most pro-lifers develop rapid memory loss when dealing with the issue of them possibly being subjected to what they want to force the woman to undergo and "forget" to deal with it.

Quote: I see them as biologically human, and while some individuals including embyrologists have quolms with the claim that they are "human", I do not see how they can do so on a purely biological basis. So on a purely biological level, they are completely human. Well, "human" is the species designation, so I don't see any disagreement with you. I don't see the individuality that warrants claims of the embryo or fetus as "beings" or as "a" human. But that's another story.

Quote: Whether a preborn human has any right to life, or whether that right to life overrides the mother's right to bodily autonomy, is debatable. But it is still a subject of rights. Except that there is not an individual warranting a designation as "a" preborn human. It is human life and preborn, but that is as far as your verbiage holds validity. Your attempt at assigning individual existence to the embryo or fetus is unwarranted.

Quote: I agree that some people attempts to reduce abortions are downright moronic; this is a symptom of the simultaneous belief that sex is wrong and should be discouraged, not because abortion isn't important. They are of course going up against tens of millions of years of evolution, and by every example of abstinence only sex ed vs comprehensive sex ed encouraging education that isn't optimal to decreasing abortion. Agreed. Accurate, scientific sex-ed doesn't prevent sex, but then neither does ignorance. But good sex-ed may just prevent pregnancy and STDs.

Quote: And additionaly, I believe that some of those people believe that the woman is somehow lesser in that "She didn't keep her legs shut" or something to the like, though I don't see how such an attitude will actually decrease abortions. Intolerance to a person's decision doesn't really do much to dissuade them. So we agree about a lot of things.

Quote: But what is it then, steen, that makes birth grant personhood? I suspect that it is independence. Well, I see personhood as a legal issue, and as such, it is the law that grants personhood. And the law has always been consistent that the unborn is not a person.

But you are right that see the significance of birth as independence. The woman no longer has to provide her bodily resources for support and life of the fetus that now is a baby/neonate(/child), and the baby has now a multitude of independent functions that it didn't before birth.

Quote: Well, if hypothetically, people could be independent without birth, would you think them less? Nope.

Quote: Is a preborn human somehow undeserving of any rights simply because they have not been born, even though they might be otherwise exactly identical to another baby? Nope. I don't think of them less, I simply think more of the woman, if I should explain it in a simple fashion.

Quote: Being born changes something' the human's dependence upon another. Beyond that, it changes nothing. That dependence only is an issue when it comes to rights, and surely, you must realize that rights are the key issue, not the person. The issue is the right to control your own bodily resources. Your position is a bit different than the usual pro-lifer in that you do not see a person as having right to their bodily resources. So it is likely this, that I mainly disagree with you about. I see the person's right to control their own body as being above the "right to life" of the person needing your blood for survival. As such, when I don't see a person as having the right to take your bodily resources against your will, the fetal non-person most certainly have even less of such a right. THAT is my main position on abortion. That is why all the pro-life arguments about fetuses, fetal porn and judgmental remarks about a duty to the "baby" are all utterly irrelevant to me.

[sgtshortness]

joe christian wrote:
You discriminate against procreative and reproductive marriages in favor of non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriages.

Pro-choicers don't say "I'm sorry but your marriage is nto allowed to have a baby." They give them the choice.

Quote:
It is only an atheistic, pagan and secular right which if the woman is not a medical doctor only gives her the choice to self-abort. 750 abortion clinics in the US do all the killing of over a million US babies a year. How come male abortionists in the US have the sexist right to kill the partially-born female babies of married Judeo-Christian men? A lot of innocent blood being spilled there.

I meant the right to go in to get an abortion.

Quote:
She doesn't have the right to it herself. She has to hire a professional baby-killer to do the dastardly deed for her.

Sorry, meant the right to hire the proffesional.

Quote: That's a perverted atheistic way of thinking. Good thing your mother didn't have such sick secular thoughts.

So the man should have more rights than the woman in the marriage concerning abortions?

I give the woman the right because it is the lesser of two evils. A man should not have complete control over the woman. Unless you can suggest an alternative and/or compromise, I'm sticking with that.

Quote:
If you are not pro-choice, what are you going on about? Pro-abortionism?

Anti-logical fallacy.

Quote: There aren't any. Abortion is not a Judeo-Christian religious practice. It is a pagan and atheistic legal solution to the secular problem of unwanted babies.

Abortion is not a Judeo-Christian religious practice. Biking isn't a Judeo-Christian religious practice. Do some of these people bike?

I'm willing to say yes.

Quote:
You promote the right of male abortionists over the rights of Judeo-Christian and Islamic spouses to procreate and reproduce without secular interference in their marriage.

Straw man. I promote the females right, not the abortionists in this case.

Quote: You put non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriage rights before the procreative and reproductive rights of Judeo-Christian spouses.

Feminist = lesbian? Or woman's right to chose? What's a feminist marriage right?

The woman's right to choose and the man's right to chose are mutually exclusive. Gay rights and the man's right to chose are not.

[Prole]

steen wrote: Well, I see personhood as a legal issue, and as such, it is the law that grants personhood. And the law has always been consistent that the unborn is not a person.
There is no debate as to whether a preborn human is legally a person; the debate is whether a preborn human SHOULD morally and/or legally be considered a person, at what point this occurs and whether that personhood should grant them a right to life that supercedes the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

I and hopefully everyone else is aware that abortion is legal, and that a preborn human has no rights legally until like the 26th week.

steen wrote: Prole wrote: Personally, I believe that forcing people to donate blood if it would mean saving a life would be acceptable.
Fortunately, the US Constitution disagrees with you.
Which section of the US constitution would make forcing people to donate blood illegal?

And thanks for the gold star.