Abortion: Official discussion v.4

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Nov 5, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I wouldn't exactly hold Mark Levin up as a fair or impartial author/radio personality. I've listened to him a few times and every time he has always spewed bile. Hell, even my father can't stand listening to him and he's a pretty staunch conservative.
  2. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    So? I was using him as an example of an abortion opponent who has consistently presented non-religious arguments.

    Since the "religious conservatives" that diz is complaining about are usually identified as Christians, and Levin is Jewish, that rather neatly demolishes diz's stereotype right there.

    And if you read the actual chapter I cited, you would see that it's nothing like his radio show. He provides a wealth of sources to back up his statements.

    Kimball Kinnison

    EDIT: Rereading my original post, I'm wondering where you got that I ever claimed that Levin is a "fair or impartial author/radio personality"? All I said is that he is a Jewish lawyer and radio host, and that he presents a detailed legal argument against Roe v. Wade. Anything beyond that is purely what you choose to read into my statements.
  3. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    He's Jewish and conservative so chances are his complaints come from a religious view on the matter. He may very well make a convincing argument legally, but I seriously doubt that his objections to it are based on anything regarding the law. And before you claim that that is an unfair judgment of him I've heard the **** he spews. If he's not really that way then he should never present that image. And I doubt if Roe is eventually overturned that it will stop there. Opponents of abortion will always oppose it, even if they aren't slack-jawed fundamentalists and if it's left to the states. They'll still complain and protest and kill abortion doctors. Again, giving them an inch and I'm pretty sure they'll take a mile. Besides, anti-abortionists haven't really thought out their positions that well for the day when it is made illegal.
  4. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Except Liberal Lunatics. As someone who lives in the south I can honestly say most of us think the most ridiculous legislation has come from liberal areas.

    If you want to know why the Pro-Life side or Conservatives aren't keen on giving ground just look at your arguements. For me an unborn child is a child. Abortion to me is simple murder. That is what I believe, and people have a hard time understanding why our side won't give ground. To us we're trying to save LIVES!

    And that's not the only reason we don't give ground!

    As people support abortion now what will they fight for 50 years from now? If an unborn child isn't a person now whose to say a mentally challenged person won't be in 50 years? Or a baby that can't take care of itself. I mean it can't talk or care for itself, it requires someone else to care for it. It's out of the womb but it's no different. Why can't we kill it now? Or a family member that's in a coma. I mean he's going to be a financial drag and maybe the family just can't afford it. He may have signed the form saying don't pull the plug but he's not a person now. So why not just pull the plug?

    As the Pro-Abortion side is so keen on keeping abortion legal what's to stop them for pushing on with that kind of legislation? For people like me if somebody is willing to classify someone as a non-person and kill them what's to stop that from expanding?
  5. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    And that, kind sir, is why RvW will never be overturned.

    As the Pro-Abortion side is so keen on keeping abortion legal what's to stop them for pushing on with that kind of legislation? For people like me if somebody is willing to classify someone as a non-person and kill them what's to stop that from expanding?

    Common sense? You know, that whacky concept of using one's higher brain capacity?

    As people support abortion now what will they fight for 50 years from now? If an unborn child isn't a person now whose to say a mentally challenged person won't be in 50 years? Or a baby that can't take care of itself. I mean it can't talk or care for itself, it requires someone else to care for it. It's out of the womb but it's no different. Why can't we kill it now? Or a family member that's in a coma. I mean he's going to be a financial drag and maybe the family just can't afford it. He may have signed the form saying don't pull the plug but he's not a person now. So why not just pull the plug?

    [image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/FireIceDeath/onoes.gif]


    Do you really not see the differences in situations or are you deliberately being obtuse?
  6. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Common sense? You know, that whacky concept of using one's higher brain capacity?
    100 years ago they said common sense would prevent abortion.

    And no I don't see the situations as being different. A person now may not be considered a person in a few years if certain people keep feeling they can decide who is and who isn't a person.

    200 years ago if someone asked if an unborn child was a person only the village loon would say no. Now more than half would say an unborn child isn't a person. Another hundred years the village loon may not be a 'person' anymore.
  7. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    100 years ago they said common sense would prevent abortion.

    Did they? I guess humans were closer to god then or something. The main reason for being against abortion 100 years ago was because it was unsafe. Not because god told them that it was wrong.

    And no I don't see the situations as being different. A person now may not be considered a person in a few years if certain people keep feeling they can decide who is and who isn't a person.

    Truly astounding. I always thought that human thought could be nuanced in everyone...until now. Stunning.

    200 years ago if someone asked if an unborn child was a person only the village loon would say no. Now more than half would say an unborn child isn't a person. Another hundred years the village loon may not be a 'person' anymore.

    Amazing that in 200 years people advanced in medicine, abortions became safer, people became more knowledgeable, and myths are being relegated to fairy tales instead of being taken as fact. Ah, I love the 21st century. Imagine this, humans improve their conditions and adapt to new technologies, isn't that fascinating?
  8. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Did they? I guess humans were closer to god then or something. The main reason for being against abortion 100 years ago was because it was unsafe. Not because god told them that it was wrong.

    Notice I did not mention God or religion as a reason. And most people back then did think the unborn child was a child.

    Truly astounding. I always thought that human thought could be nuanced in everyone...until now. Stunning.

    I ask you this what makes a person a person? Is it the ability to talk? The ability to think? The ability to move? A child just out of the womb is no different than what it was when it was in the womb. When people feel they can say what is and isn't a person they will continue to pass judgement to make their lives easier.

    Amazing that in 200 years people advanced in medicine, abortions became safer, people became more knowledgeable, and myths are being relegated to fairy tales instead of being taken as fact. Ah, I love the 21st century. Imagine this, humans improve their conditions and adapt to new technologies, isn't that fascinating?

    Yes just like the great scientists 2000 years ago told everyone the Earth was flat. Perhaps in the 22nd century technology will advance to where we can tell who will be problems for society and kill them before they are born. Or we can have technology that will allow people to think only what they should think. Ah yes technology and human advancemet, everytime we discover we can do something it means we should do it. I mean all those things would make the world more efficient and safer.

    Just because we can do something doesn't make it right to do it.
  9. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Notice I did not mention God or religion as a reason. And most people back then did think the unborn child was a child.

    Oh, I noticed, but I tend to take the view that anyone that can believe a clump of cells is a person must either be religious or religiously tainted. That or they're patently crazy. :)

    I ask you this what makes a person a person? Is it the ability to talk? The ability to think? The ability to move? A child just out of the womb is no different than what it was when it was in the womb. When people feel they can say what is and isn't a person they will continue to pass judgement to make their lives easier.

    Well, there are four factors in being a person to me: self-awareness, being outside of the womb, and being fully developed physically or at least mostly developed, and being able to communicate. You can get rid of awareness and the ability to communicate and still be a person. However, being outside of the womb and fully developed are a necessity in personhood.

    Yes just like the great scientists 2000 years ago told everyone the Earth was flat. Perhaps in the 22nd century technology will advance to where we can tell who will be problems for society and kill them before they are born. Or we can have technology that will allow people to think only what they should think. Ah yes technology and human advancemet, everytime we discover we can do something it means we should do it. I mean all those things would make the world more efficient and safer.

    Most discoveries make life better for everyone involved. If we went by those standards you?re putting up nothing would get done. Or we?d have endless committees setup just to decide whether we should do something. I don?t think the calculator would get by anyone in that sort of world.

    Just because we can do something doesn't make it right to do it.

    Brilliant philosophy there. Your cunning plan has a flaw: Who decides what is right and what is not?

    EDIT: Please don't bore me with that appeal to democracy, "Well, the people decide what is right." According to most Americans (56% IIRC) they support abortion.
  10. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Oh, I noticed, but I tend to take the view that anyone that can believe a clump of cells is a person must either be religious or religiously tainted. That or they're patently crazy.

    So you're not a person? After all what are we but a clump of cells?

    Well, there are four factors in being a person to me: self-awareness, being outside of the womb, and being fully developed physically or at least mostly developed, and being able to communicate. You can get rid of awareness and the ability to communicate and still be a person. However, being outside of the womb and fully developed are a necessity in personhood.

    A person to me is anyone with the potential to be a person. If you have the chance to be a person you are a person to me. But I ask you, if you take a baby out of the womb it becomes a person right? So even if the umbilical cord is still attached it's a person, it just has to be out of the mother? So one second it's not a person and just becuase it moves a few inches it suddenly becomes a person?

    Most discoveries make life better for everyone involved. If we went by those standards you?re putting up nothing would get done. Or we?d have endless committees setup just to decide whether we should do something. I don?t think the calculator would get by anyone in that sort of world.

    Discoveries like chemical and nuclear weapons. Yes those all made life so much better for everyone. :rolleyes: Yes chemicals and nuclear energy are useful but does that mean everyone one of their uses is? If technology can harm people it should be used very carefully. And I've yet to see a calculater kill someone.

    Brilliant philosophy there. Your cunning plan has a flaw: Who decides what is right and what is not?

    We decide the same way we decided murder was wrong. The same way we decided rape was wrong. The same way we decided stealing was wrong. The same way we decided lying was wrong.
  11. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    +3. You're aware that individual cells form tissues, which in turn form organs, which in turn form people, right? Individual cells are just that: cells. They're about as self-aware as an orange juice bootle.


    A person to me is anyone with the potential to be a person. If you have the chance to be a person you are a person to me. But I ask you, if you take a baby out of the womb it becomes a person right? So even if the umbilical cord is still attached it's a person, it just has to be out of the mother? So one second it's not a person and just becuase it moves a few inches it suddenly becomes a person?

    So, to you, sperm and eggs=people? What'd it like in the reproductive tract- "Hey, Larry, how's things hanging down there? Oh, not to bad, Bob. Kinda cramped."

    Discoveries like chemical and nuclear weapons. Yes those all made life so much better for everyone. :rolleyes: Yes chemicals and nuclear energy are useful but does that mean everyone one of their uses is? If technology can harm people it should be used very carefully. And I've yet to see a calculater kill someone.

    So, the UN Security Council should get involved if somebody wants an abortion? After all, it's evidently equivalent to nuclear and chemical weapons. Damn abortion clinics; you can tell they're out to vaporize entire city blocks.

    We decide the same way we decided murder was wrong. The same way we decided rape was wrong. The same way we decided stealing was wrong. The same way we decided lying was wrong.

    Sooo...universal morality? Yep, clearly your morality applies to everyone in the thread, and for that matter, on Earth.

    Oy, I thought I'd never post in this thread, but I guess I was wrong.

  12. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    So you're not a person? After all what are we but a clump of cells?

    Aww?.you?re feigning ignorance as to what a fertilized embryo is. That?s sooo cute.

    A person to me is anyone with the potential to be a person. If you have the chance to be a person you are a person to me. But I ask you, if you take a baby out of the womb it becomes a person right? So even if the umbilical cord is still attached it's a person, it just has to be out of the mother? So one second it's not a person and just becuase it moves a few inches it suddenly becomes a person?

    Depends on the condition of the fetus. If it?s in the first trimester (like most abortions are) then no, it?s not a person. If it?s later then yes, it could potentially be a person if it?s fully developed and can survive outside of the womb. And thank you for playing, ?Let?s try to trip him up,? next time do it right. Like, ?What about aborted alien fetuses? Ooh, look a whale.?

    Discoveries like chemical and nuclear weapons. Yes those all made life so much better for everyone. Yes chemicals and nuclear energy are useful but does that mean everyone one of their uses is? If technology can harm people it should be used very carefully. And I've yet to see a calculater kill someone.

    Yes they have. Nuclear weapons have allowed the creation of atomic energy. Chemical weapons?depends on what kind we?re talking about. Either way they?re not all bad for humanity is the point. And you?re right, calculators have never killed anyone. But keep this in mind: calculators have made an entire generation lazy when it comes to math. No more do you need to actually solve problems with your own skills, but just use a machine to do it for you. I dare say that that is a negative consequence of it and most certainly wouldn?t make it ?right? in your fantasy land.

    We decide the same way we decided murder was wrong. The same way we decided rape was wrong. The same way we decided stealing was wrong. The same way we decided lying was wrong.

    Yes, I see your words but they say nothing. Let?s try this whole, ?Do not appeal to democracy,? thing again. Who decides what is right and what is not?
  13. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    +3. You're aware that individual cells form tissues, which in turn form organs, which in turn form people, right? Individual cells are just that: cells. They're about as self-aware as an orange juice bootle.

    Yeah a man in a coma is about as aware as a juice bottle too.

    So, to you, sperm and eggs=people? What'd it like in the reproductive tract- "Hey, Larry, how's things hanging down there? Oh, not to bad, Bob. Kinda cramped."

    Yes a sperm+egg=person. I started out that way. I was one cell. I have since grown to what I am now. I was once 5 years old. I doubled in size since then and have gained much more information since then, but I was still me at five years old just like I was me when I was a fetus and when I was just one cell.

    So, the UN Security Council should get involved if somebody wants an abortion? After all, it's evidently equivalent to nuclear and chemical weapons. Damn abortion clinics; you can tell they're out to vaporize entire city blocks.

    Yes it's not like we have product safety commisions that inspect to see if something is safe. :rolleyes:

    Sooo...universal morality? Yep, clearly your morality applies to everyone in the thread, and for that matter, on Earth.

    Yes clearly unless everyone see's murder, rape, theft, ect as wrong we shouldn't make laws saying they are wrong.

    Aww?.you?re feigning ignorance as to what a fertilized embryo is. That?s sooo cute.

    Awww... you're deciding who is a person becuase you are clearly the pinnacle of human evolution and are advanced enough to decide the who has the right to live. I didn't know you were a deity.

    Depends on the condition of the fetus. If it?s in the first trimester (like most abortions are) then no, it?s not a person. If it?s later then yes, it could potentially be a person if it?s fully developed and can survive outside of the womb. And thank you for playing, ?Let?s try to trip him up,? next time do it right. Like, ?What about aborted alien fetuses? Ooh, look a whale.?

    Well at least you agree that at some point the child is a person. I guess there is hope for the future of humanity.

    Yes they have. Nuclear weapons have allowed the creation of atomic energy. Chemical weapons?depends on what kind we?re talking about. Either way they?re not all bad for humanity is the point. And you?re right, calculators have never killed anyone. But keep this in mind: calculators have made an entire generation lazy when it comes to math. No more do you need to actually solve problems with your own skills, but just use a machine to do it for you. I dare say that that is a negative consequence of it and most certainly wouldn?t make it ?right? in your fantasy land.

    Yes I'm sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki will tell you how much nuclear weapons helped humanity. I'm sure the Kurds will tell you how much chemical weapons helped humanity. They may not be bad for you but having others suffer for someone elses comfort isn't helping humanity. I see your calculator analogy about the same way you saw my slavery analogy. At least you have the chance to stop using a calculator. Laziness can be cured, death can't. And yes hoping people try to use technology that doesn't hurt others is clearly a stupid. "If it makes me comfortable to heck with everyone else!"

    Yes, I see your words but they say nothing. Let?s try this whole, ?Do not appeal to democracy,? thing again. Who decides what is right and what is not?

    How do you think people decided murder was bad? They had a consensus that if somebody killed you it was wrong. What gave them the right to decide it was wrong? You know I think they have a word for what I'm getting at... what was it now... oh yes, morality.
  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Awww... you're deciding who is a person becuase you are clearly the pinnacle of human evolution and are advanced enough to decide the who has the right to live. I didn't know you were a deity.

    What did that have to do with any thing? You were acting like you couldn?t differentiate between a clump of cells of say?a sperm and egg being joined and say?.an actual person. What you said had absolutely nothing relating to what I said.

    Well at least you agree that at some point the child is a person. I guess there is hope for the future of humanity.

    Yes, yes, and every time a bell rings a fundamentalist grows a brain. Or wings. One of those. Maybe both.

    Yes I'm sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki will tell you how much nuclear weapons helped humanity. I'm sure the Kurds will tell you how much chemical weapons helped humanity. They may not be bad for you but having others suffer for someone elses comfort isn't helping humanity.

    Now, I have to wonder: Do you actually read my posts or do you reply to what you think I said?

    I see your calculator analogy about the same way you saw my slavery analogy. At least you have the chance to stop using a calculator. Laziness can be cured, death can't. And yes hoping people try to use technology that doesn't hurt others is clearly a stupid. "If it makes me comfortable to heck with everyone else!"

    Ah, your slavery analogy is just bad all around. Comparing abortion with any thing like slavery is just a bad analogy. Now, the calculator makes sense in your fantasy land. See, it causes a negative and we can create it. But should we? Who knows. It?s up to you and your mind. To quote: Just because we can do something doesn't make it right to do it. Which is just another variation of ?Just because we can, doesn?t mean we should.? So, in your fantasy land of simple philosophy it would stand to reason that since a calculator causes a negative on society would mean it would never go through. Am I making myself clear on this point or do you just not ?get? it, because if you don?t get it, I?m fine with that.

    How do you think people decided murder was bad? They had a consensus that if somebody killed you it was wrong. What gave them the right to decide it was wrong? You know I think they have a word for what I'm getting at... what was it now... oh yes, morality.

    Yes, it was decided by a consensus, but there had to be a reason. I knew you could do it, pulled the morality right out like a rabbit from a hat. Whose morality do we follow? I certainly wouldn?t follow the Judeo-Christian or Muslim model as killing is seen as a necessity if you break the rules of said morality. Hardly something that a society can follow. Sure, some bits work like not killing each other, but that's just common sense. Of course it's natural to want death only wished upon your enemies and not your particular group.
  15. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    Notice I did not mention God or religion as a reason. And most people back then did think the unborn child was a child.

    I have to disagree actually. I thought (correct me if I am wrong, I am going on a fairly distant memory) religiously the idea of the quickining was the definition for when life began; when the mother to be could feel movement. Also there is a passage from the Bible (darn it, I can't remember which one) that (we can debate this) states life is in the blood, so life for the unborn does not start until it has blood, which is not right at conception.

    So you're not a person? After all what are we but a clump of cells?

    You are right, we are just a bunch of cells. "Life, natures way of keeping meat fresh." Well, there must be more to human life than just that; what is that something more? I do expect an answer (I don't want what you think I think it is or what other people think it is, I want your view on the facts).
  16. Andreas_Lamont Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 15, 2005
    star 1
  17. dizfactor Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 5
    No, there are not "quite a few." There are a handful of individual people who are opposed to Roe on that level, but not so many that it's a politically significant faction. The anti-abortion movement is populated almost entirely by religious conservatives, and if the religious conservatives were to leave the movement, there would be no movement to speak of.

    Yes, I'm only dealing with arguments that are actually advocated by large enough numbers of people to matter on a political level... and the problem with that is what, exactly?
  18. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    You have no proof of that.

    Essentially, you are saying that your stereotype is true because you say it's true. You keep asserting that it's pretty much only "religious conservatives" who oppose abortion, and so therefore if someone opposes abortion, they are a "religious conservative". That is pure circular reasoning, a textbook example of the "begging the question" fallacy.

    Kimball Kinnison
  19. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Which voice would you say is the loudest, KK, as far as the anti-abortion movement goes.
  20. dizfactor Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 5
    You have no proof of that.[/quote]

    Abortion rights views by religion.

    On the large scale, it's a religious issue, as people on both sides would acknowledge. You're being intentionally difficult.
  21. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That poll doesn't say what you are claiming it does. First of all, if you look at the breakdown by religion, you only get the extremely low results from "Born-again Christians", "Very Religious" and "Evangelical Born-again Christians".

    However, do the numbers with me for a moment. Using the percentages and the number of respondents listed, you only get a total of 830 people said that they were against abortion while 1412 were in favor. Of those only 273 people opposed (or about 33%) said that they were "very religious" (61% of 448 people). Similarly, about 35% (289 people) opposed to abortion identified themselves as being "Born-again Christians".

    At first glance, that would suggest that you are right, that almost 70% of the people opposed to abortion are either very religious or "Born-again". However, if you add up all of the individual responses, you get a total of 1326 people opposed to abortion, as compared to the 830 you get from the percentage and total listed in the poll. That tells us that the two percentages have a significant overlap.

    In other words, when you actually look at the numbers in the poll, you only get about one third of the abortion opponents who fall into the description that you give. Your assertions simply aren't upheld by the facts.

    Kimball Kinnison
  22. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Loudest isn't the same thing as most numerous. diz is one of the louder voices here on the boards on some issued, but that doesn't mean that his views are shared by the most people.

    Kimball Kinnison
  23. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Yes, you're right. However in this case the loudest is the most predominant in the anti-abortion movement. As diz said, you're just being difficult.
  24. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    No, I'm simply sick of everyone throwing around stereotypes and caricatures of their opponents in almost every discussion. Can't people actually address the actual arguments and positions, instead of using straw men and ad hominem attacks? Calling someone names doesn't do anything to discredit the reasoning behind their argument.

    Like I pointed out to diz, only about 33% of the respondents opposed to abortion identified themselves as "very religious". Only about a third of the respondents identified themselves as "Born-again Christians". One third is not the same thing as a majority, nor is it even enough to justify a generalization labeling all abortion opponents as being in that one third. At the least, you can reasonably say that his generalization is wrong in two out of three cases.

    The only thing that his generalization does is it gives him justification for ignoring what all abortion opponents say, because after all, they're just a bunch of religious wackos, right? Except that at best the "religious wackos" (as he's been applying criteria) are only one third of the group.

    Kimball Kinnison
  25. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    No, I'm simply sick of everyone throwing around stereotypes and caricatures of their opponents in almost every discussion. Can't people actually address the actual arguments and positions, instead of using straw men and ad hominem attacks? Calling someone names doesn't do anything to discredit the reasoning behind their argument.

    Even stereotypes have an element of truth to them. IIRC anti-abortion types are enemies to progress. Or something. As has been said of many moderate Muslims/Christians: if you stood up and actually made some actions toward getting your point heard you would garner more attention and praise. However, anti-abortion advocates always have an element of religiosity to their views no matter if it's on legal grounds. And people are wary of supporting the legal side of the argument because of that fact. Sorry to say but if you want the legal argument to be taken seriously you're gonna have to find a secular humanist or an Atheist, because no one will believe that a religious person really cares for the law because they believe that abortion is murder.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.