Abortion = less crime?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are-indeed human beings with rights -- shouldn't they have full rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they should. Whats your point?

Stu

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are-indeed human beings with rights -- shouldn't they have full rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they should. Whats your point?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Just how far the government can or should go to protect those rights. Where do those lines get drawn?

Who, ultimately has more rights -- mother or child? In a life or death situation where only one can live, who gets to live? Who decides?

In the scenarios I listed above, (out of country abortion, threatening abortion, etc) what's the government's role?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So if somebody went to another country for an abortion, they should be prosecuted for murder upon their return?

If somebody told a friend they were considering an abortion, should there be a goverment hotline? Should she be be imprisoned for the full term of her pregnancy?

If you have a pre-natal test that indicates there is a 99% chance that your child will be massively deformed and retarded -- by government mandate the pregnancy should continue to term?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you cloud the issues with all these irrevealant externalities? Its simple. If the unborn are human they should be treated as such. If you don't know if the unborn are human you should err on the side of caution until proven otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno man.

I think that the mother has some rights here. I believe that an embryo is a potential human being.

[/ QUOTE ]



When one human beings right conflicts with another human beings right, the superior right prevails. Look at things in that context and descerning right actions from wrong actions become obvious.

Stu

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if somebody went to another country for an abortion, they should be prosecuted for murder upon their return?

If somebody told a friend they were considering an abortion, should there be a goverment hotline? Should she be be imprisoned for the full term of her pregnancy?

If you have a pre-natal test that indicates there is a 99% chance that your child will be massively deformed and retarded -- by government mandate the pregnancy should continue to term?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you cloud the issues with all these irrevealant externalities? Its simple. If the unborn are human they should be treated as such. If you don't know if the unborn are human you should err on the side of caution until proven otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno man.

I think that the mother has some rights here. I believe that an embryo is a potential human being.

[/ QUOTE ]



When one human beings right conflicts with another human beings right, the superior right prevails. Look at things in that context and descerning right actions from wrong actions become obvious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You are living in a world of philosophy, theory, and make-believe. If you come back to earth, you'll find out that you have to deal with reality. Reality is a good deal harder as Meech has illustrated very effectively. So for starters, try to look at implications of differing legal options and try to put yourself in the place of various players involved in different abortion situations. Also, try to get your friends to do this as well. Thanks.

[twowords]

For instance, if many people like BCPVP would consider the implications of equating abortion with murder (Ex. one friend murdered an innocent co-worker in cold blood and another was raped and had an abortion; do you feel equally morally repelled by both acts? Doubt it folks) and how it would affect the real world if their views became the law, then I doubt they could continue to feel this way.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
You are either poor, black, and uneducated, at which point I feel sympathy for your situation and say that I can't and never will really understand what you go through in life

Or

You just started your freshman year of college and you've already worn the cover off of every Michael Moore book that your roomate lent you. At which point I feel sympathy for your situation and say that I can't and never will really understand what you go through in life

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm neither. Why don't you go ahead and tell us more about how the unborn fetuses of atheist liberals are worth less to you than those of other parents? I've taken my anti-emetic, I think I can handle it this time around.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
the book basically just looks at stats to come up with different answers. it is not political in anyway. basically it also trys to get people to think rationally about problems. for example car accidents are way more of a problem than terrorism or stuff the media hypes. basically that is what alot of econ professors do. try to come up with explanations for things different than common perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand what you are trying to say. However, correlation does not prove causation. The correlation mentioned by the OP is probably real (in terms of the stats mentioned). It is by NO MEANS proof of causation. However, there are a lot of people on this board who will take that "analysis" offered and use it to denigrate poor people. I might have been a little bit hasty with my comments, but I feel that I merely headed the discussion off at the pass.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You are living in a world of philosophy, theory, and make-believe. If you come back to earth, you'll find out that you have to deal with reality. Reality is a good deal harder as Meech has illustrated very effectively. So for starters, try to look at implications of differing legal options and try to put yourself in the place of various players involved in different abortion situations. Also, try to get your friends to do this as well. Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the real world is most people think the morally and ethically correct road is too difficult. They abdandon any principals they have for ease and convience.

I was in my own situation and those principals guided me through it. The road was tougher but I still made it to my destination.

Stu

Egocide, I agree that it is nice to debate this without mudslinging and I admire how you haven't reacted to posters claiming you are 18 and don't deserve to debate these things. I think you are more than able to defend yourself. So I have two more points for you.

1. You claimed I was splitting hairs when I mentioned a wife claiming a headache could be construed as cutting off a potential life. I was not splitting hairs. This is actually how tricky and absurd it can get if you let others decide this line instead of each mother. As another poster mentioned, certain religions do consider the wife's headache claim to be morally wrong.

2. You mentioned that you are certain that anything after the point of conception is a life. Have you ever seen what a one week old embryo looks like? It's a microscopic piece of goo. If you looked at it, you'd think it resembled human life as much as a booger from your nose. And in some ways, it would be just as human. No brain, no nerves, no pain, no possibility of living on its own. Only the potential for life. Just as there is the potential for life when a man and a woman look at each other right before one of them asks, "hey, you wanna do it?" So the conception thing to me is just a convenient line to draw for you, just as for others there is the line at insertion for Catholics, or the husband's request for someone else. To me there is only one meaningful reason to magically draw the line at conception. It is because you have bought into some relgious story that a soul somehow enters a zygote on the moment of the zygote's creation. I realize that almost all Christians buy into this story because it is the prevailing story. This despite the fact that this story was never uttered in the so-called sacred book of Christians. I just don't get it. But you do and therefore want to decide for all women what the line is. To me that is anti-choice. I know you disagree.

3. You claim that we should all get on board with playing it safe morally and going by the conception line in the sand just in case that is the gold standard for what constitutes a life. I don't agree, but you believe that I should agree with your line even though you can't prove the line yourself. Others would ask you to make the line at the husband's request for sex and you dismissed this idea as splitting hairs. Why can you disregard their calling for you to come onboard with their line in order to play it safe morally, but I'm not allowed to disregard your calling for me to come on board with your line?

[ QUOTE ]
Egocide, I agree that it is nice to debate this without mudslinging and I admire how you haven't reacted to posters claiming you are 18 and don't deserve to debate these things. I think you are more than able to defend yourself. So I have two more points for you.

1. You claimed I was splitting hairs when I mentioned a wife claiming a headache could be construed as cutting off a potential life. I was not splitting hairs. This is actually how tricky and absurd it can get if you let others decide this line instead of each mother. As another poster mentioned, certain religions do consider the wife's headache claim to be morally wrong.

2. You mentioned that you are certain that anything after the point of conception is a life. Have you ever seen what a one week old embryo looks like? It's a microscopic piece of goo. If you looked at it, you'd think it resembled human life as much as a booger from your nose. And in some ways, it would be just as human. No brain, no nerves, no pain, no possibility of living on its own. Only the potential for life. Just as there is the potential for life when a man and a woman look at each other right before one of them asks, "hey, you wanna do it?" So the conception thing to me is just a convenient line to draw for you, just as for others there is the line at insertion for Catholics, or the husband's request for someone else. To me there is only one meaningful reason to magically draw the line at conception. It is because you have bought into some relgious story that a soul somehow enters a zygote on the moment of the zygote's creation. I realize that almost all Christians buy into this story because it is the prevailing story. This despite the fact that this story was never uttered in the so-called sacred book of Christians. I just don't get it. But you do and therefore want to decide for all women what the line is. To me that is anti-choice. I know you disagree.

3. You claim that we should all get on board with playing it safe morally and going by the conception line in the sand just in case that is the gold standard for what constitutes a life. I don't agree, but you believe that I should agree with your line even though you can't prove the line yourself. Others would ask you to make the line at the husband's request for sex and you dismissed this idea as splitting hairs. Why can you disregard their calling for you to come onboard with their line in order to play it safe morally, but I'm not allowed to disregard your calling for me to come on board with your line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im about to see Lord of War (supposedly a good political movie??!?) so I'll be breif:

Point one really isn't a question, its a statement, and I agree it can be a tricky line and needs to be deliberated, not yelled or protested about by fanatics on either side.

Point two/three: If it was proven that a fetus, or a peice of goo as you called it, were not a human, than I would have no problem with abortion, obviously. Unfortunately, as strongly as you feel (without proof either I might add) that it is not alive, every instinct and gut feeling I have tells me that its murder. Do you know what its like to debate in a calm matter that which I regard as the murder of an innocent? But im drifting, allow me to talk about the point that the words about conception are never in the Bible. The Church has had its bad days, I know this. But on this point, that conception is the "line in the sand" I have to agree. Because it is the coming together of the sperm and the egg that is truly the mixing of a man and a woman into one being. And as fanatic as that sounds, I think that it is true. Thats also why I believe that sperm itself has the potential for life, as does an egg. But neither are alive. I realize that this sounds hyproctical, that I am denouncing one line in the sand while defending mine. i suppose I cannot make this sound better. If I had the chance to debate someone as to why they think that way, I would like to.

As this discussion grew longer, I realized what someone once told me after I was in a debate regarding politics: You cannot and will not, even using evidence, dislodge someone from their spot on the fence. I hope that I am an exception, as I stated above if there is evidence that life does not begin at conception or God comes down to earth to tell us so, I will jump off that fence and gladly let women choose what to do with their bodies. But do you see (you dont even have to agree with my position) why I would rather not let it be a womans choice? Because I think that it is murder. And just as I oppose the D.P., I cannot consciously let this go without a verbal fight, if you will.

this will be my last post on this thread, as I pointed out debating this with those not in the middle is a futile exersize. Good talk, see ya out there. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]