Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

There is no scientific difference in intellectual capability between a newborn and a fetus that justifies whether or not they have a right to life. The right to life is granted by the society you live in according to the beliefs of the majority of its citizens. If they believe it starts at 25 weeks, thats when it starts.

[AllAmericanMan]

Selfish_Meme wrote: There is no scientific difference in intellectual capability between a newborn and a fetus that justifies whether or not they have a right to life. The right to life is granted by the society you live in according to the beliefs of the majority of its citizens. If they believe it starts at 25 weeks, thats when it starts. So in other words, it should be legal because it is legal?

[Selfish_Meme]

No, this is not circular, when a society as a whole defines that something can be said to be moral, immoral or amoral, then it can vote on legislation to enforce that moral stance. When they decide something is moral, immoral or amoral it may not be by defined by a scientific standard. It is not a just because, laws and morals change.

For example.
Drinking Age, is that defined by a scientific standard? No, it is not, it's just someones or some committees best guess. Some people think it is immoral to drink, some don't, this is what we end up with.

[Lumina]

I think the right to life is a little more basic than the right to drink.

[Gitana]

Pregnancy is not a 'miraculous', it's the natural physiological result of a male & a female (of any species) having sex. It's not even rare, or unusual, or difficult to achieve, or requiring supernatural intervention - which, the last time I checked, were at least partial definitions of a 'miracle.' As far as I know, it doesn't even require consent, consciousness or desire. It can occur in a brain dead patient on life support. It can occur in a petri dish. It's simple biology. Any additional perceptions of it are creations of the human mind and/or emotions.

Human beings are not exactly an endangered species, so to act as though every fertilized egg were something to be worshiped is ridiculous. Each one has a unique set of genetics, but so does almost every other creature. We humans are a species that idolize ourselves; because of our self-awareness, we imbue ourselves with qualities and attributes that are pure fantasy.

I find it abhorrent that people can sit here and discuss how incredibly valuable a microscopic fertilized egg is (one of billions at any given moment worldwide), and simultaneously know that children all over the world - and pregnant women - are being murdered, bombed, starved, etc - many at the hands of ...all-American males. And they consciously suffer - an egg does not. The height of ideological hypocrisy of a sort I cannot fathom. Only a person who has never seen real suffering could have the luxury to wander off into such an idea.

Put some of that ideological energy into helping a real live child who is suffering. Adopt an unaborted baby. Feed a child who is dying painfully from starvation. Sponsor a child from a poor country who is suffering from a disease that we can cure here - fly them in & pay for their medical treatment.

As for AAM - I feel sorry for you. A single male, by your own admission, who has decided that this is your raison d’être. You can never have, or not have, an abortion. So your responsibility and participation in this issue can only start -and end- at your use of birth control.

And btw - just to add to your quasi-biological arguement: my eggs were formed while I was a growing fetus; I was born with all the eggs I will ever have in my lifetime. They are mine, they are me just as much as my eyes or liver is. They do not become 'not me' after fertilization, they just evolve with an addition of genetic material. So - how do you, someone who has never met the women he wants to control, reach the pinnacle of presumption to suddenly label them "our" babies - and decide you have a right to decide what happens to them?

I can have a baby by artificial insemination; no male needed for any other stage of pregnancy or birth. You cannot make or have a baby without a female's eggs and body. I just need a tiny contribution from a male - you need the entire woman.

No law will ever change how nature determined that pregnancy is under the complete control of the woman. Live with it.

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: Pregnancy is not a 'miraculous', it's the natural physiological result of a male & a female (of any species) having sex. It's not even rare, or unusual, or difficult to achieve, or requiring supernatural intervention - which, the last time I checked, were at least partial definitions of a 'miracle.' As far as I know, it doesn't even require consent, consciousness or desire. It can occur in a brain dead patient on life support. It can occur in a petri dish. It's simple biology. Any additional perceptions of it are creations of the human mind and/or emotions.

Human beings are not exactly an endangered species, so to act as though every fertilized egg were something to be worshiped is ridiculous. Each one has a unique set of genetics, but so does almost every other creature. We humans are a species that idolize ourselves; because of our self-awareness, we imbue ourselves with qualities and attributes that are pure fantasy.

I find it abhorrent that people can sit here and discuss how incredibly valuable a microscopic fertilized egg is (one of billions at any given moment worldwide), and simultaneously know that children all over the world - and pregnant women - are being murdered, bombed, starved, etc - many at the hands of ...all-American males. And they consciously suffer - an egg does not. The height of ideological hypocrisy of a sort I cannot fathom. Only a person who has never seen real suffering could have the luxury to wander off into such an idea.

So you place no value on human life until it reaches a point at which YOU determine it has value. Why would you think that because some else believes human life has value from its beginning they would advocate would be fine with the fact that "children all over the world - and pregnant women - are being murdered, bombed, starved, etc - many at the hands of ...all-American males".

Also since you equate human life to that of all of all other animals and perhaps plants, why then do we not kill each other for food, after all if we can identify those individuals that don't meet other standards of existence then we need not waste their substance once we determine it to be of no worth, lets feed some of those starving children.

[Selfish_Meme]

Lumina wrote: I think the right to life is a little more basic than the right to drink.
It is analogous because there is little scientific evidence for either, yet we have people declaring that their definition is the correct one. In the case of drinking the Government has a specific law, in the case of Life the Government pretty much refuses to declare it or its basis.

[Gitana]

Quote: So you place no value on human life until it reaches a point at which YOU determine it has value.

I didn't say I place no value on human life - but yes, just like everyone else who has an opinion on this, I have my own beliefs about conceptual value; and like everyone's beliefs on this topic, mine are completely subjective. :wink: What I was trying to show was the simple biology of fertility, in light of the seemingly-worshipful views some have of it.

Quote: Why would you think that because some else believes human life has value from its beginning they would advocate would be fine with the fact that "children all over the world - and pregnant women - are being murdered, bombed, starved, etc - many at the hands of ...all-American males".

I didn't say that they advocated such; but it could be construed that way. The prolife moivement puts huge amounts of money and energy into attempting to legislate their views onto all women. But putting some of those anti-abortion resources into more productive things might actually help a live child that desperately needs it, rather than worrying about what I might do with my eggs - it would lend them more credibility. Speculating about a woman's potential pregnancy, and wishing to control that against her will seems much less important than helping living babies - if indeed, the prolifers goal really is to protect babies, as they say - and not just to control women's sexuality or pregnancies.

Quote: Also since you equate human life to that of all of all other animals and perhaps plants, why then do we not kill each other for food,

Biologically, human life and animal life is completely equatable; that we imbue it with much more value arises from our self-awareness. Btw - some humans have killed each other for food; but mostly we just kill each other for greed or ideological reasons -that is the single biggest difference that seperates us from the animals. We have always killed each other for reasons other than survival; animals are lacking that drive. So in that sense, one could say they are superior to us in that respect.

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: Quote: So you place no value on human life until it reaches a point at which YOU determine it has value.

I didn't say I place no value on human life - but yes, just like everyone else who has an opinion on this, I have my own beliefs about conceptual value; and like everyone's beliefs on this topic, mine are completely subjective. :wink: What I was trying to show was the simple biology of fertility, in light of the seemingly-worshipful views some have of it.

Quote: Why would you think that because some else believes human life has value from its beginning they would advocate would be fine with the fact that "children all over the world - and pregnant women - are being murdered, bombed, starved, etc - many at the hands of ...all-American males".

I didn't say that they advocated such; but it could be construed that way. The prolife moivement puts huge amounts of money and energy into attempting to legislate their views onto all women. But putting some of those anti-abortion resources into more productive things might actually help a live child that desperately needs it, rather than worrying about what I might do with my eggs - it would lend them more credibility. Speculating about a woman's potential pregnancy, and wishing to control that against her will seems much less important than helping living babies - if indeed, the prolifers goal really is to protect babies, as they say - and not just to control women's sexuality or pregnancies.

The Catholic Church is clearly a leading entity in the prolife movement. It also spends more money and employees more people in the effort to provide food, shelter, medicine and education to women and children ofALL faiths world wide than any other single organization (including any single government) on earth.

Gitana wrote:
Biologically, human life and animal life is completely equatable; that we imbue it with much more value arises from our self-awareness. Btw - some humans have killed each other for food; but mostly we just kill each other for greed or ideological reasons -that is the single biggest difference that seperates us from the animals. We have always killed each other for reasons other than survival; animals are lacking that drive. So in that sense, one could say they are superior to us in that respect.

But do you believe that human beings are no different than animals are we right in placing ourselves above them or not and do you understand the motivation of someone who believes that human life begins at conception (which is the medical and embryological view) might be interesting in preserving human life?

[Lumina]

[quote="Gitana"] Quote: I didn't say that they advocated such; but it could be construed that way. The prolife moivement puts huge amounts of money and energy into attempting to legislate their views onto all women. But putting some of those anti-abortion resources into more productive things might actually help a live child that desperately needs it, rather than worrying about what I might do with my eggs - it would lend them more credibility. Speculating about a woman's potential pregnancy, and wishing to control that against her will seems much less important than helping living babies - if indeed, the prolifers goal really is to protect babies, as they say - and not just to control women's sexuality or pregnancies.

My question is why you're assuming a fallacious either/or. Why do you think that those who are putting "money and energy" into protecting the pre-born are somehow squandering those resources that could instead go to helping the already-born?

Why are you making the assumption that those of us who wish to protect the pre-born aren't even more eager to protect and assist those precious babies who have already been born?

Please respond with facts, if you will. I am prepared to do so too because I know--and live--differently. What's with your either/or?

[Selfish_Meme]

You mean like this?
The Republican Party wrote: The pro-life Party
Abortion is the right-or-wrong issue of our time. We should parallel the words of Abraham Lincoln today and say: The Republican Party looks upon abortion as a wrong, and the Democratic Party does not look upon it as a wrong. That's the crucial difference between the two parties.
http://www.rnclife.org/brochure/rprolife.html

The Republican Party National Committee
http://www.gop.com/Issues/SpendingRestraint/

Republican National Committee wrote: The Long-Term Fiscal Danger

The greatest threat to our fiscal health over the long-term comes from unsustainable growth in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

* The Budget saves $65 billion over 5 years by slowing the future growth of entitlement spending.

[Lumina]

Non-responsive post and not even a good dodge. BTW, I am not a Republican.

[Gitana]

I don't assume an either/or for individuals, and this also answers your second question. When I discuss this issue, I am thinking (always) of the prolife movement: the heavily funded lobbyist/political/religious groups - usually non-profit - that are trying to legislate their views onto every woman in America. Their only agenda is to ban abortion completely, and many of them are also intent on making contraception either more & more difficult to obtain, or to hopefully ban it alltogether at some point in the future. They do not care, or assist, anything or anybody else. It is a control issue, and they've successfully framed it as an emotional one to garner support.

I am not concerned with individual Americans, because polls have been consistent for decades: most Americans recognize that abortion should remain legal - with varying degrees of restriction, depending on poll specifics. Individual Americans are generally well-intentioned, and good-hearted; lobbyists are not.

My concern is that a relatively small but moneyed group is trying to legislate behavior for only one specific group of US citizens, based on their gender.

While I'm at it, let me correct the post title. Plan B doesn't cause abortions, RU-486 does. Plan B and RU-486 are two completely different products. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy; a pregnancy is created when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall and begins to grow. If you prevent an implantation, it is not an abortion; despite AAM's insistence on using all these terms as he sees fit, and not in their correct meaning. Ok, today I declare that "cat" means "dog."

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote: I don't assume an either/or for individuals, and this also answers your second question. When I discuss this issue, I am thinking (always) of the prolife movement: the heavily funded lobbyist/political/religious groups - usually non-profit - that are trying to legislate their views onto every woman in America. Their only agenda is to ban abortion completely, and many of them are also intent on making contraception either more & more difficult to obtain, or to hopefully ban it alltogether at some point in the future. They do not care, or assist, anything or anybody else. It is a control issue, and they've successfully framed it as an emotional one to garner support.

I am not concerned with individual Americans, because polls have been consistent for decades: most Americans recognize that abortion should remain legal - with varying degrees of restriction, depending on poll specifics. Individual Americans are generally well-intentioned, and good-hearted; lobbyists are not.

My concern is that a relatively small but moneyed group is trying to legislate behavior for only one specific group of US citizens, based on their gender.

While I'm at it, let me correct the post title. Plan B doesn't cause abortions, RU-486 does. Plan B and RU-486 are two completely different products. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy; a pregnancy is created when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall and begins to grow. If you prevent an implantation, it is not an abortion; despite AAM's insistence on using all these terms as he sees fit, and not in their correct meaning. Ok, today I declare that "cat" means "dog."

Excuse me, but a majority of Americans do NOT approve of abortion as a means of birth control. And the vast majority of abortions are performed for that reason.

So many indefensible overgeneralizations and mistaken "facts" that I don't really know where to begin. One example, though, is that lobbyists are not "well-intentioned." That's simply indefensible.

But I'm really glad that you claimed, "They do not care, or assist, anything or anybody else. It is a control issue, and they've successfully framed it as an emotional one to garner support." That those who are pro-life don't "care" or "assist" is demonstrably untrue.

I find very tiresome the assumption that those of us who believe in the sanctity of life don't also care about babies who are not aborted but instead allowed to live. It's just not true.

[AllAmericanMan]

[quote="Lumina"] Gitana wrote: Quote: I didn't say that they advocated such; but it could be construed that way. The prolife moivement puts huge amounts of money and energy into attempting to legislate their views onto all women. But putting some of those anti-abortion resources into more productive things might actually help a live child that desperately needs it, rather than worrying about what I might do with my eggs - it would lend them more credibility. Speculating about a woman's potential pregnancy, and wishing to control that against her will seems much less important than helping living babies - if indeed, the prolifers goal really is to protect babies, as they say - and not just to control women's sexuality or pregnancies.

My question is why you're assuming a fallacious either/or. Why do you think that those who are putting "money and energy" into protecting the pre-born are somehow squandering those resources that could instead go to helping the already-born?

Why are you making the assumption that those of us who wish to protect the pre-born aren't even more eager to protect and assist those precious babies who have already been born?

Please respond with facts, if you will. I am prepared to do so too because I know--and live--differently. What's with your either/or? \n
In my math text book its referred to as a "limited choice" fallacy. Also could be considered "hasty generalization" (I got an A on that test)

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote:
I am not concerned with individual Americans....

Yes, you've made this painfully clear.

[Lumina]

[quote="AllAmericanMan"] Lumina wrote: Gitana wrote: Quote: I didn't say that they advocated such; but it could be construed that way. The prolife moivement puts huge amounts of money and energy into attempting to legislate their views onto all women. But putting some of those anti-abortion resources into more productive things might actually help a live child that desperately needs it, rather than worrying about what I might do with my eggs - it would lend them more credibility. Speculating about a woman's potential pregnancy, and wishing to control that against her will seems much less important than helping living babies - if indeed, the prolifers goal really is to protect babies, as they say - and not just to control women's sexuality or pregnancies.

My question is why you're assuming a fallacious either/or. Why do you think that those who are putting "money and energy" into protecting the pre-born are somehow squandering those resources that could instead go to helping the already-born?

Why are you making the assumption that those of us who wish to protect the pre-born aren't even more eager to protect and assist those precious babies who have already been born?

Please respond with facts, if you will. I am prepared to do so too because I know--and live--differently. What's with your either/or? \n
In my math text book its referred to as a "limited choice" fallacy. Also could be considered "hasty generalization" (I got an A on that test)

Yes, it's also a hasty generalization. Here, this is a subset of either/or, the assumption that either one does/believes this OR one does/believes the other. This assumption that those who are pro-life don't care about babies once they're born is, regardless of the logical term, breathtakingly ignorant and uninformed.

[Gitana]

Quote: Excuse me, but a majority of Americans do NOT approve of abortion as a means of birth control. And the vast majority of abortions are performed for that reason.

A perfect example of 'they've successfully framed it as an emotional one (issue) to garner support." Every abortion is birth control - you are terminating a pregnancy. What you mean is the reason for that termination - which I covered:

"most Americans recognize that abortion should remain legal - with varying degrees of restriction, depending on poll specifics."

Quote: One example, though, is that lobbyists are not "well-intentioned." That's simply indefensible.

That's hilarious. If you are picturing a 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' lobbyist - it's a fantasy. A Mr. Smith wouldn't make it past the reception room. There is no relationship between your well-meant personal ideals and the people I am talking about; except your vote & your money, and whether or not they can get it for their client. They don't really care what you think, except as a tool to push their agenda or tailor their PR to please you for their profit/power.

Quote: But I'm really glad that you claimed, "They do not care, or assist, anything or anybody else. It is a control issue, and they've successfully framed it as an emotional one to garner support." That those who are pro-life don't "care" or "assist" is demonstrably untrue.

You are speaking for all prolifers? :wink:
You keep taking the groups I'm talking about and adding yourself to personalize my comments and rebutt them with your own experience. You may do other things to help people aside from stumping against abortion - these groups do not. They spend not one dime on assisting anything but the legal fight to eliminate abortion. The major prolife groups also offer not one solution to the very real problem, for example, of suddenly adding hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies to our society (800,000+ in the most recent abortion statistic). But I'm sure you have a solution..?

Is a fertilized egg and a born, aware child of absolute equal value in your mind?

Btw - Quote: BTW, I am not a Republican.

That won't matter if you support them with your vote on this issue.

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote: A perfect example of 'they've successfully framed it as an emotional one (issue) to garner support." Every abortion is birth control - you are terminating a pregnancy. What you mean is the reason for that termination - which I covered:

"most Americans recognize that abortion should remain legal - with varying degrees of restriction, depending on poll specifics."

So you think that going back a layer of specificity is an argument?! No, Gitana, not every abortion is for the purpose of "birth control," and you're being disingenuous and dishonest to represent facts in that way.
I specified a particular, anyway, rather than a universal: A majority of Americans do NOT support abortion as a means of birth control. And the vast majority of abortions are performed for that very reason.

Still, Americans long have been uneasy with the procedure and the reasons it's done — and these doubts remain. Eight in 10 or more say an abortion should be legal to save the woman's life, to preserve her health, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. A much smaller majority, 54 percent, supports legal abortion if there's evidence the baby will be physically impaired.

However, 57 percent oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — "if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby." And opposition soars to about seven in 10 or more for so-called "partial-birth abortions" or abortions conducted in the sixth month of pregnancy or later.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

Quote: One example, though, is that lobbyists are not "well-intentioned." That's simply indefensible.

Gitana wrote: That's hilarious. If you are picturing a 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' lobbyist - it's a fantasy. A Mr. Smith wouldn't make it past the reception room. There is no relationship between your well-meant personal ideals and the people I am talking about; except your vote & your money, and whether or not they can get it for their client. They don't really care what you think, except as a tool to push their agenda or tailor their PR to please you for their profit/power.

Not really. Your statement is indefensible. Now you're arguing a universal, that NO lobbyists are well-intentioned. This is patently, demonstrably untrue (unless, of course, you know every lobbyist and can argue that every single one of them has bad intentions--which, of course, you cannot).

Again, making the claim that no lobbyist actually cares, that all lobbyists are out only for money and power is an insupportable generalization that demolishes your credibility.

Quote: But I'm really glad that you claimed, "They do not care, or assist, anything or anybody else. It is a control issue, and they've successfully framed it as an emotional one to garner support." That those who are pro-life don't "care" or "assist" is demonstrably untrue.

Gitana wrote: You may do other things to help people aside from stumping against abortion - these groups do not. They spend not one dime on assisting anything but the legal fight to eliminate abortion. The major prolife groups also offer not one solution to the very real problem, for example, of suddenly adding hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies to our society (800,000+ in the most recent abortion statistic). But I'm sure you have a solution..?

I am a member of the Coalition for Life, and as a member of a major pro-life group, I do indeed say you are mistaken in claiming that none of these groups do anything to help except assisting in the legal fight. Now it's up to you to identify other major pro-life groups and prove that what you claim is true. Please identify the groups by name so that all who read this thread can investigate your claims for themselves.

Gitana wrote: Is a fertilized egg and a born, aware child of absolute equal value in your mind?

Yes, I believe they are of equal value.

Btw - Quote: BTW, I am not a Republican.

Gitana wrote: That won't matter if you support them with your vote on this issue.

Ah, so it won't matter then? What kind of logic is that? Do you think that only Republicans are pro-life? You've demonstrated already that you don't have as many facts as you do prejudicial opinions...why do it again?

[Gitana]

Quote: Ah, so it won't matter then? What kind of logic is that? Do you think that only Republicans are pro-life? You've demonstrated already that you don't have as many facts as you do prejudicial opinions...why do it again?
Republicans are the only party running on the ban-abortion agenda; so my comment stands. If you vote for banning abortion, you will be voting Republican, and hence supporting them on all their positions. Declaring you are or are not a Republican is moot in the above circumstance. Unless... there is a Dem or Indie running in your area who is for banning abortion completely, and are you going to vote for that candidate? If so, please provide the name so I can research their position. :wink:

Quote: Now you're arguing a universal, No, you declared it that. I said 'the people I'm thinking of." My life and work in DC provided me with the viewpoint provided; you cannot label it inaccurate, because it is the sum of my experiences.

Quote: I am a member of the Coalition for Life, and as a member of a major pro-life group, You'll have to be more specific. Googling 'The Coalition For Life' only gives us scattered local groups, except for the Republican National Coalition For Life. Please direct me to your major groups website so I can see what they do other than fight abortion laws.

Quote: The major prolife groups also offer not one solution to the very real problem, for example, of suddenly adding hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies to our society (800,000+ in the most recent abortion statistic). But I'm sure you have a solution..? I would also like to read your groups proposed solutions, if any, for my question above that you didn't address.

Quote: A majority of Americans do NOT support abortion as a means of birth control. And the vast majority of abortions are performed for that very reason.
Still, Americans long have been uneasy with the procedure and the reasons it's done

This was addressed, you apparently didn't understand it:

A perfect example of 'they've successfully framed it as an emotional one (issue) to garner support." Every abortion is birth control - you are terminating a pregnancy. What you mean is the reason for that termination - which I covered:

"most Americans recognize that abortion should remain legal - with varying degrees of restriction, depending on poll specifics." Hint: poll pushing; framing.

Quote: Gitana wrote:
Is a fertilized egg and a born, aware child of absolute equal value in your mind?

lumina: Yes, I believe they are of equal value.
I hope someday teachers aren't showing first graders a fertilized egg under a microscope and saying "look, Johnny, this tiny organism is every bit as valuable as YOU, and enjoys exactly the same legal status." That'll be a bit confusing to Johnny, I think; who will wonder why being an alive, self aware child with feelings and personality doesn't make him more valuable than the spot under the microscope. What a perfectly odd concept.

As for the rest, I'm not going to bother explaining again. You are having trouble comprehending my statements as they are intended because you're spoiling for a fight on this topic. Having realized that you:

1. apparently base your position on religious views
Quote: Those who are pro-abortion never seem to address the fact that another life is now growing and that this life has rights too. You know the ones--does "endowed by their Creator" ring a bell? -lumina and

2. are increasingly resorting to um..'emotion' with each post

Quote:
You've demonstrated already that you don't have as many facts as you do prejudicial opinions
an insupportable generalization that demolishes your credibility
you're being disingenuous and dishonest
Your statement is indefensible
etc

Regarding credibility, you, earlier in this thread didn't even know the difference between Plan B and RU-486. I find that a bit disturbing from an 'active member' of the abortion political scene.

No offense, and have a nice day.