I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

atomicn
Of course it can't be discussed logically people bring in religion (which has nothing to do with logic).

You're right, and the surprising part is that God has been brought into it mostly by Pro Abortionist.
Quad

As has been pointed out, I allowed my personal emotion to control my most recent two postings in this thread. That was not why I started this thread. I learned of Katie's tragedy today and because of my personal knowledge of her situation I was overwhelmed by her pain and suffering. Those feelings came out through my fingers without going through my brain. To the extent that these two posts deviated from the purpose of the thread, I apologize.

To the poster who asked if I had the courage to curse God, Job, Chapter 2:

Then his wife said to him, "Are you still holding to your innocence? Curse God and die." But he said to her, "Are you even going to speak as senseless women do? We accept good things from God; and should we not accept evil?" Through all this, Job said nothing sinful.

Now, back to logic.

For something to be a potential anything, it must be an actual something. A "potential officer" is an actual cadet, a potential quarterback is an actual football player. What is inside the mother? I know it is being given the name "potential life," but that dodges the question (and begs the question, by assuming it is not an "actual" life.)

Science tells us it is alive, so it is a life. It also tells us that it is unmistakably distinct from either of it's parents, and it is a member of the human species. Denying any of those is silly. We are dealing with a unique human life. By claiming it is a "potential" human life, one is simply saying "I don't want to give the protections to that life that I do to all other human lives."

All right, I can understand that position, but how do pro-choicers justify their decision, what's the logic behind depriving that particular type of life of protection?

One way is that it is dependent on another for it's very life. People who are thus dependent shouldn't be protected. Then what do we do with the old man in hospital dependent on his doctor or nurse? Or the diabetic who is dependent on his pharmacist for insulin? Or the prisoner who is dependent on his jailer for food and water?

Another way to attempt to justify it is by saying the umbilical connection is what allows us to deprive them of rights. Think about that for a second. More simply put, it is "We can deprive foetuses of rights because they are foetuses." Well, yes, but as a model of persuasive logic it fails dismally.

Against those positions are the decisions of the Supreme Court, Congress, and 38 states. The only response I've heard to that is "Of course those laws aren't valid or proper, they were passed by men." Which is more a criticism of the mental stability of the believer than a refutation of the laws.

Also against those arguments are the experiences of women who start knitting blankets when they realize they're pregnant, look forward to a "blessed event," start decorating the "Baby's room," and on and on.

The only pro-choice argument that makes any sense to me at all is: "We women have been discriminated against forever. Now we're going to do what we want, whether it's good or not. We'll just refuse to let men, society, religion, anything, tell us what to do. If we want it, we'll do it, and we'll roll over anyone who gets in our way." That, at least, would be an honest statement of the pro-choice position. Logical? Mature? Your call, I know some accept it.

So, let's return to logic. I am quite serious that I am perfectly willing to be shown that the current pro-choice position is logical. I might have to change my opinion if that is the case. I'm always looking to improve my opinions.

windword

Right! It's the mother's choice,

Your forgot to add "...to kill another human being."

To be clear, the Supreme Court ruled, in Roe V Wade, that the unborn have no right to life before viability.

SCOTUS also ruled that Dred Scott wasn't a person, that separate but equal was right and just and that you can't legally keep and eat all of the food you grow. SCOTUS has an agenda just like everyone else in power, and their decision isn't always right because it's from them.

This man was prosecuted under the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, signed into law by President Bush. When this law passed, pro-lifers were ecstatic that they were one step closer to declaring a fetus, yea, even a fertilized egg, a person.

Yet pro-abortionists were eerily silent, and have been ever since. The repeal of of the UVVA would disrupt the cognitive dissonance of liberals everywhere by allowing the murder of masses of tissue by anyone, not only mothers and the government.

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

IF a foetus could be looked after and nourished by anyone other than

the host/mother then it would be no more reliant than a two year old.


But we all know that is NOT possible

But doesn't that then leave the liability of the life solely on the mother until birth?? Nobody is saying a woman and a man can't have an accidental pregnancy I'm simply saying there are other methods other than murdering a life. You still seem to equate being pregnant as some sort of human rights issue that only exists for the mother but it exists for both, and to me you cannot convince me 9 months of labor trumps 60 - 90 years of another persons life.

If there is an accidental pregnancy the female should carry until birth and give that child up to a loving family. The male who took part in the accidental pregnancy should be responsible for financial support. A 50/50 split is not sufficient as the male has less they have to bare in the pregnancy.

reply to post by charles1952

Against those positions are the decisions of the Supreme Court, Congress, and 38 states. The only response I've heard to that is "Of course those laws aren't valid or proper, they were passed by men." Which is more a criticism of the mental stability of the believer than a refutation of the laws.

Lets look again at Roe V Wade:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
www.law.cornell.edu...

The court recognized that abortion was a fundamental, yet qualified right.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." en.wikipedia.org...

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
www.law.cornell.edu...

reply to post by The Old American

SCOTUS also ruled that Dred Scott wasn't a person, that separate but equal was right and just and that you can't legally keep and eat all of the food you grow. SCOTUS has an agenda just like everyone else in power, and their decision isn't always right because it's from them.

If Roe V Wade was challenged, it would still be upheld under the 13th Amendment:

When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.
en.wikipedia.org...

Your forgot to add "...to kill another human being."

Because it's not.

Yet pro-abortionists were eerily silent, and have been ever since. The repeal of of the UVVA would disrupt the cognitive dissonance of liberals everywhere by allowing the murder of masses of tissue by anyone, not only mothers and the government.

No they weren't! There was and still is loud opposition to that law: Tell Congress to Repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

windword

Because it's not.

Not what? Human? Is it a dolphin? A dragon?

No they weren't! There was and still is loud opposition to that law: Tell Congress to Repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Petition Closed with 0 supporters. Thanks for making my case for me.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

Dear The Old American,

To be absolutely fair to windword, the petition had 374 signatures before it closed. (I'm trying not to chuckle.)

Of course it's a human, I'm astonished that anyone would fly in the face of universal (or nearly universal, we mustn't forget Prof. Irwin Corey) scientific declarations.

As far as the viability argument, what kind of right is it that gets more limited as medical abilities increase? When an artificial womb is invented, does the "right" disappear completely?

I'm still looking for some logic here. Have you seen some that I might have missed?

With respect,
Charles1952

The Old American

windword

Because it's not.

Not what? Human? Is it a dolphin? A dragon?

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
www.law.cornell.edu...

It's a potential human life.

Petition Closed with 0 supporters. Thanks for making my case for me.

Yet pro-abortionists were eerily silent, and have been ever since.

No they weren't!

reply to post by charles1952

As far as the viability argument, what kind of right is it that gets more limited as medical abilities increase? When an artificial womb is invented, does the "right" disappear completely?

A woman will always have the right NOT to be pregnant.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I'm confused by your statement. Doesn't a woman have a right not to be pregnant now? I mean with all of the birth control methods, and refusing to have sex, and all.

What I was thinking with the artificial womb business was that it would make a foetus viable from, say, two or even fewer months. Then, under Roe it would be viable, and the state picks up a compelling interest in protecting the life of the child.

Are you saying that a "potential" life becomes a life when it is viable? Or may a woman terminate at any time?

Just confusion, not an argument.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

I'm confused by your statement. Doesn't a woman have a right not to be pregnant now? I mean with all of the birth control methods, and refusing to have sex, and all.

over 50% of all abortions are due to birth control failure. Accidents also happen. We need better contraception and more available sex education.

What I was thinking with the artificial womb business was that it would make a foetus viable from, say, two or even fewer months. Then, under Roe it would be viable, and the state picks up a compelling interest in protecting the life of the child.

Are you saying that a "potential" life becomes a life when it is viable? Or may a woman terminate at any time?

No, after viability the state has an interest in preserving the potential human life. After all, they may need that potential human life later to fight a war, pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

windword

No, after viability the state has an interest in preserving the potential human life. After all, they may need that potential human life later to fight a war, pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

Wait...is this the same State that liberals want out of their bedroom/bodies/lives?

/TOA

reply to post by charles1952



Oh!! If only pregnancies were as on "Stepford Wives" ... one dimensional.
No one has taken into account the rush of additional hormones, the actual physical and mental
change to the pregnant woman, the situation she is in at the time she decides to have an abortion eg:-
# The break up of her relationship
# Being left by the potential father?
# Severe illness of one or other of the children
# Sudden illness or care needed for elderly parents
# The death of any of the above
There must be 101 other reasons? ...And WHO has any right to make a judgement on her
decision she won't have arrived at it easily.... A case for walking a mile in her shoes?
This brings to mind a dilemma I have often pondered on ... Two of my children in a river, what
ever happens I can only save one .......

You stated that one is dependant on the other for their very life. There are other instances where
this happens too. Take con-joined twins who share certain organs and only one can survive?

The umbilical connection?
A five month pregnant woman has a car accident, falls down stairs, has a heart attack, anything
that kills her ... then her 'foetus', her 'baby' her 'potential baby' this 'independent being' call it
what you will is dead too!! ....So much for its independent existence !!

Your warm fuzzy ideal view of 'motherhood', knitting blankets and jackets, decorating the
nursery, choosing names etc. only exists when the woman is content and happy in her condition,
when she isn't she takes the other route, and despite the opinions of others she won't have come
to her decision easily.

I have to agree with your statement that 'women have been discriminated against forever' But
abortion is not new before it became legal women died in the attempt, they died in mutilated
agony - Do you honestly believe that was an easy choice to make? can you understand the
desperation that drove them to that point? .......

Before castigating them - 'Walk a mile in their shoes'

reply to post by libertytoall


Right point by point and then you might, just might stop trolling:-

Your points in "quotes"

# "But doesn't that leave the liability of the life solely on the mother until birth??"

Duh!! obviously isn't that what I've been saying all along??


# "You still seem to equate being pregnant to some sort of human rights issue that only exists
for the mother"

No not human rights pregnant women's rights and until a man can give birth it doesn't
exist for him


# "I there is an accidental pregnancy the female should carry until birth and give the child up
to a loving family"

Lol...lol You making the laws now?? Contrary to your belief a woman is not a baby
manufacturing factory


# "The male who took part in the accidental pregnancy should be responsible for financial support"
LOL ...lol you are having a laugh aren't you ? Tell that to the C.S.A. lol...lol

reply to post by charles1952


Let's look at this from a privacy/personal property standpoint. If you are a homeowner, you have the right to decide who comes in your home. Even if you invite someone into your home, if at any time you want that person out of your home, they have to leave if you want them to. Even if there is a poisonous gas outside that may mean certain death for that person, if you feel threatened or uncomfortable having that person in your home, you have the right to kick him out.

A woman's body is her personal property. If you try to force your penis into her body against her will, you are committing an unconstitutional act, even if she flirted with you and made you think she was willing. If you try to force her to use her body as a life support system against her will, you are committing an unconstitutional act, even if her actions caused that fetus to be in her body, and even if it means certain death for that fetus.

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

# "You still seem to equate being pregnant to some sort of human rights issue that only exists
for the mother"

No not human rights pregnant women's rights and until a man can give birth it doesn't
exist for him

We're going in circles like a broken record primarily because you FAIL to make the proper connections. Nobody is arguing about the "man's" rights in the event the female gets pregnant we're arguing over the BABIES rights. Your "pregnant woman's" rights do NOT trump the right of a life. Sorry, only a person with no regard for human life could see it another way..

# "I there is an accidental pregnancy the female should carry until birth and give the child up
to a loving family"

Lol...lol You making the laws now?? Contrary to your belief a woman is not a baby
manufacturing factory

Now you're being an ignorant troll again. Nobody said a woman is a baby manufacturing factory. Nobody is forcing a woman to get pregnant. Why is it so hard for you to understand if you get pregnant it's YOUR responsibility to NOT KILL the life.. I could just as easily call a woman an abortion murder factory.

kaylaluv
reply to post by charles1952

 

A woman's body is her personal property. If you try to force your penis into her body against her will, you are committing an unconstitutional act, even if she flirted with you and made you think she was willing. If you try to force her to use her body as a life support system against her will, you are committing an unconstitutional act, even if her actions caused that fetus to be in her body, and even if it means certain death for that fetus.

And killing that fetus should be an unconstitutional act even more so than any other you've listed. A woman's body may be her property but the fetus is NOT her property if she does not properly care for it. Even after a child is born the baby is NOT the property of the mother. If the mother does not provide adequately for the child the child will be taken away from her. She doesn't own it like a possession.. She is automatically responsible for it's health and well being. Human life are not goldfish you can throw down the toilet whenever you decide you don't want it anymore..

reply to post by charles1952


You know what, Charles, a baby one of the most innocent human beings there is - killing it for selfish reasons is a symptom of a society that is basically screaming "Let's kill anyone who is too weak to stand up for themselves because we want to be more selfish!"

This kind of society does not end well. If this mentality is allowed to spread past abortions, you know what happens - we end up in a society where no one is safe, because someone is trying to kill them.

People think that they are special and they think that they could survive in a society based on selfishness just fine - but if these people have their bluff called, how many would live? 10% ? 20% ?

The only reason selfishness works is because someone isn't selfish. The only reason the person getting the abortion is alive is because her parents weren't selfish. If everyone was selfish, the person getting the abortion would have been dead years ago.

In a society built for the selfish - Would you live? There is a point where being selfish becomes a burden rather than something to enjoy. When this point is reached, there really is no going back easily.

reply to post by libertytoall


No, after the baby is born, it is not the personal property of the mother and there are certain things the mother is required to do for the dependent child-- but the mother still has the legal right to say she doesn't want to raise the child.

You cannot and should not force a woman to use her personal body as a life support system against her will.

On the flip side, you cannot force a woman to NOT use her personal body as a life support system, hence the topic of this OP, with the boyfriend.

reply to post by libertytoall


Wow liberty, the only thing I took out of this discussion between you two is that certain women would apparently kill their own child just to get ahead in life.

I remember reading "The Grapes of Wrath" about The Great Depression in the 1930's - there was a scene in there where the woman breastfed an old man at the end who really needed help to survive. It's called compassion, and Steinbeck is no pushover.

His strong female character was willing to do what hardly any other woman these days is - I give her credit where credit is due, I'm not going to trash her for sacrificing herself.

It might become more obvious what I am saying when our economy continues to decline and people are put in a position where they understand why putting petty issues aside for the greater good is the only way to survive.