The error in your “reasoning”(what a fucking joke)is that murdering babies is the morally inferior position. Twist&twirl all you want, you take pleasure from murdering babies, and are fighting tooth and nail to steal tax dollars to pay for it.

Suppose Mary decides that she wants to have 1 child and only 1 child with her husband, Paul. In February, she discovers she is pregnant. But, she doesn’t want to look fat during the summer (they live in Miami), so she has an abortion. In August of that year, she gets pregnant again, and 9 months later has a daughter. Can someone please explain:

1. Was anyone harmed in this scenario? If yes, whom?

2. Could this harm have been avoided if Mary’d had her tubes tied before marriage?

My apologies; I was not aware that allowing the federal government to control what a woman does with her uterus was an “extreme” choice.

See what I did there???

Yep. You perverted the issue and ultimately did nothing.

Planned Parenthood. Where to turn to when you don’t want to take responsibility for your own actions.

Jimmypop, My grandson was adopted through a private adoption in the southeastern portion of the US five years ago. Private adoptions still do happen, but they are rare.

TheTodd:

If we sterilized all women*, we could end this “genocide” (your word). Would you support that? Why or why not?

Forced sterilization is not an option in a free society and I for one would not support it in any society. Why do you always propose such extreme choices? It would never occur to you that murder of innocent human beings in the womb is destructive of the moral and spiritual fabric of a nation, as would be forced sterilization.

We havbe become a culture of death and we need to face that problem head on as a nation!

Kenny:

Maybe I’ll be the only one to say it, but the idea that banning abortion will stop people from having children is the single stupidest argument I have ever heard.

If you honestly believe that there’s no link between unprotected premarital sex and the widespread availability of abortion in America… wow.

I hold: As the chances of having a child go up, the prevalence of premarital sex goes down. (Suppose we banned birth control pills. Do you really think more single women would have unprotected sex? Women use birth control products–including abortion–because they want to reduce the likelihood of a child resulting from sex. By eliminating the prevalence of these products, fewer children will be conceived. This is not difficult at all to understand.

I’m agreeing with what conservatives have been saying since Roe V. Wade: Abortion leads to the moral decay of society, increasing the prevalence of promiscuous sexual behavior, particularly among women. Is there a single conservative who disagrees with that?

I like Bernie more every day.

Adoption at one time was 25% of single mothers giving their children to capable homes. It is now 1%.

both i and my brother were adopted (abortion was legal for me, but not him). as of today, i dont know of anyone that adopted a kid that wasnt either taken form a ‘poor’ country or by rule of law taken from a ‘parent’ and placed in a foster home.

Why do you always propose such extreme choices?

My apologies; I was not aware that allowing the federal government to control what a woman does with her uterus was an “extreme” choice.

See what I did there???

We are engaged in genocide in America; but here, the systematic killing of a group of innocent, defenseless human beings in the womb.

If we sterilized all women*, we could end this “genocide” (your word). Would you support that? Why or why not?

*Or, if you prefer, just all unmarried women under 21, whom I imagine–offhand–must account for a wildly disproportionate number of abortions.

The fetus lives off of another human. That human has the right to do what she wants to a certain point.
it’s a unique situation with no analogies or parallel.

I have three kids that live off of me. Does that mean I have the right to kill them when I don’t want them around?

TheTodd: Your proposition is an endorsement of the baby killing machine called abortion on demand, by our taxpayer funded abortuaries (execution chambers), euphmistaclly called Planned Pasrenthood. No matter the outcome of fewer abortuaries, the option of murdering innocent children in the womb has made the U.S. a greater killing machine in the past 50+ years than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and/or Pol Pot. We are engaged in genocide in America; but here, the systematic killing of a group of innocent, defenseless human beings in the womb.

2hotel9

(thetodd), please to tell us why tax dollars should be used to murder all the babies you want to kill?

They should not.

Except Palin wasn’t asked about a law. She was asked what she would personally do if she or a family member was raped. She responded she would choose life.

That’s it. No government coersion. Nlaw. Her personal choice. If it was her? She’d choose life. Her daughter? She’d ask them to choose life.

So, if you were offended, you’re EXTREMELY stupid.

But, y’see Kenny, it doesn’t matter what she would sign into law. The public assumes that any publicly held opinion in today’s day and age will undoubtedly become their policy, and that hurt her.

…I’m not saying what’s right. Just what is.

Why? In the first scenario, by aborting the first child, Mary gets to enjoy spring break. This increases her level of happiness, and does not decrease anyone else’s.

Because it’s not like women who have their babies killed don’t deal with any psychological hardship after the fact…

[email=http://www.aaplog.org/postabortion.htm]…just, y’know, tens of thousands.[/email]

Dino, we are required by law to provide for poor, elderly and, well…bankers and $140,000/yr bolt turners. I don’t think it’s much to ask to NOT kill one’s own baby…And if you believe that veterans weren’t spit on by liberals; you’ve drunk the kool-aid. Both my parents are reformed hippies…Why? Both cite anti-Vietnam protesters conduct, including being in crowds (even at little tiny MSUM) that spit on the vets. A myth…pff, what a putz.

Ed, theturd has no argument, so logic is unneeded. Simply continue to heap derision upon it.

I’d say payback’s a bitch, but this punishment is nothing close to the crime.

When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God. They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” Revelation 6:9-10.

In what way do you believe that fetuses have an interest in living? Also: When did you, personally, acquire that interest in extending your own life?

Are you serious? Do you understand what conjecture is? Because you don’t remember the womb you state as fact that there is no self awareness in any fetus?

Wanting to believe a thing in order to make it guilt free and establishing fact are two very different things.

This is how and why half the world is bankrolling AlGore’s progeny; Ignorance.

I say it again–Prove your statement. The burden is yours.

2hotel9:

It twirls round and round, now it will claim it never supported abortion and was just playing “Devil’s Advocate” throughout this thread.

Absolutely not! The fact that I acknowledge it’s extremely difficult to draw the line for personhood in no way means I approve drawing it in a place that’s obviously wrong (ie, conception).

The traditional pro-lifer’s claim that personhood begins at conception is just as wrong as the traditional pro-choicer’s claim that it begins at birth. More importantly, though, is that both sides know they’re wrong–they’d rather choose the wrong black line than the correct gray one.

thetodd. For the sake of discussion, please point to the establishment of your construct:
Personhood. I do not see it anywhere in the US Constitution. Life begins at conception.

Intentional killing is called murder. There have been established levels of murder in courts.
One being manslaughter. The top being premeditated murder. There has even been created a new one: Felony DUI, finally.

Ed, there is no debate to be won. Go ahead, piss away the time to go back and read what theturd has posted. It is your time, piss it away as you wish, it does not change the fact that theturd has made no “argument”, merely spewed a bunch highschool level non-logic.

It seems to me that the tramp lady carrying the child had something to do with creating this life.

Because of her willing involvement she must at least carry the child until that child can live independently of her.

The same reasoning applies in the case of rape or incest. In those cases, difficult as they may be, I would say the mother has a right to eliminate the life inside of her. Others disagree that the innocent child shouldn’t be the one to suffer. That certainly makes sense, but given the balance of interests involved I lean the other way.

Finally balancing the interests of the two (three?) parties involved isn’t the purview of a few judges. That right under our constitution belongs with the state legislatures.

I get your point.

Now if I poison my first life so that I can remarry someone who will probably commit suicide because she can’t have me I can use the same reasoning.

I wonder how that would fly in court.

(I don’t suppose my wife will realize that I’m not serious, merely pointing out how stupid that argument is.)

EddietheHated

A child is not self-reliant in infancy, nor is it, by your definition(…) self-conscious or self-aware.

Is this, by these two points, an accurate parallell?

That’s a very good question. At what point in his development does the infant become aware that he is a person–that he’s growing, learning, that the actions he does on Tuesday change the world on Wednesday? When does he learn what it means to die–and why he’d like to avoid it?

These are good questions, and unfortunately, I don’t know the answer to them. You could ask a dozen separate doctors, psychologists, and philosophers, and they’d probably give you a dozen separate answers. It is extraordinarily difficult to say with certainty when it is exactly that one acquires personhood.

It is overwhelmingly clear that personhood does not begin in the womb, or in the days immediately after birth–just as it is overwhelmingly clear that it has begun by age four. So what do we do with the time in between?

Well, if you’d like one business major’s opinion on it , I’d say that, in determining personhood, it is far, far, far better to be safe than sorry. Obviously, when we know it’s not a person whose life we’re preventing from being lived–ie, during an abortion–we should have no limits whatsoever. However, in the months after birth, I propose that to end the infant’s life, we’d need extraordinarily strong evidence to suggest that the happiness we’re creating–or unhappiness we’re alleviating–is exponentially stronger than the minute chance that the life were taking is that of a person.

In practice, of course, parents don’t want to end the lives of their children. The only time this question of personhood would come up would be if the parents discover some sort of terrible disease in their infant that could not be detected prior to its birth (as I believe is the case with spina bifida). In cases like that, some sort of medical ethics committee could convene to determine that the taking of the infant’s life to be ended painlessly. I think it would be reasonable to impose something like a 30-day window for decisions like this, but this is all getting very abstract.

In a nutshell: I do not think the line between person and non-person can be drawn as easily as it seems. It’s a delicate issue, and it requires great oversight to ensure that no one’s interests are being neglected.

I notice that theturd vanished once it was called on its bullshit.

Hey? theturd? Fuck you.

Let’s hope this will translate into a significant reduction in the number of unborn children murdered in this country in the coming years.

If so, it will be offset by a reduction in the number of live children who are born in this country. Although, I think, in your logic, that’s actually a positive, yes?

Let’s say 1 Planned Parenthood clinic closes. As a result of this, Diane–who would have otherwise had an abortion–gives birth to a child. At the same time, Diane’s friends Mary and Juliet decide not to have unprotected sex with their boyfriends–as a result, Mary and Juliet never have children. Is this a net positive for you pro-lifers? You saved one life by preventing two?

Eddie the Hated:

Bet the kid’s not too chuffed about getting snuffed out.

I’ll take that bet.

The fetus does not have an interest in being born–it has no interests whatsoever, as it lacks self-consciousness and self-awareness. It can’t see itself as existing over time–thus, ending its life causes no harm. Both the male fetus she aborted in March ’08, and the female fetus she will conceive in August ’08 had no interest in living in February ’08, as they had no interest in living at all. I fail to see how you could hold that, immediately after her first child is conceived, its interest in living is greater than that of the children she will conceive in the future. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

You may hold that Mary harms society by preventing a life from coming into existence. However, in my scenario, that specifically is not the case–she will only have one child either way, the only question is which child she will keep. (Furthermore, I fail to see how, in this view, abortion is any different from contraception or abstinence–they’re all ways of preventing lives).

If the fetus has no interests, we focus on satisfying Mary’s. As said, she receives a very small benefit by being able to go on spring break if she aborts her child. She can satisfy this interest without preventing anyone else from satisfying his; therefore, her action is ethical.

If you believe any of this is wrong, I’d appreciate it if you could show me the errors in my reasoning; thanks.

The Todd

Thetodd:

Because the day before his car accident, Mary’s husband was aware that he existed in a timeline–that he could set goals today to be accomplished in the future. By euthanizing him, you are denying him that opportunity.

Sorry, that’s just BS.

Why does anybody have an automatic right to accomplish any said goals and what if he was a slacker that had none?

We deny people the right to pursue their goals all the time. See “US Prisons”.

You are basically arguing for an inalienable right to pursue something you don’t even know the person ever had. That’s plain silly.

Eddie, as I see it, the problem with the argument is that it can be applied equally to other circumstances.

What if you had somebody in a car wreck who was in a coma, and it was estimated it would take e.g. six months for them to recover from?

Suppose Mary, the wife of the victim, wishes to go to e.g. Disneyland, but is stuck watching after her convalescing mate. By your own logic, what stops her from having her husband euthanized so she can go on vacation?

With the husband and with the fetus we generally have the same level of certainty that the being in question will gain full consciousness in less than a year.

Why one and not the other? If you reject euthanizing the adult, how then can you justify taking the life of the fetus?

Using theturd’s “reasoning” we can “abort” it anytime we choose.

By the way, Carrick, if you don’t mind me asking, why do you believe murder is wrong (ie, we have laws prohibiting it)?

Simple enough.

We prohibit murder because in general the future value of that person to society outweighs the benefits of the would be killer if that person were dead.

Let’s say 1 Planned Parenthood clinic closes. As a result of this, Diane–who would have otherwise had an abortion–gives birth to a child. At the same time, Diane’s friends Mary and Juliet decide not to have unprotected sex with their boyfriends–as a result, Mary and Juliet never have children. Is this a net positive for you pro-lifers? You saved one life by preventing two?

You haven’t “prevented” a human life by convincing two women to not bear children out of wedlock. You’re making a futile attempt to compare the ending of a human being’s life to the decision to abstain from bringing a child into the world.

Killing a human being is murder.
Deciding now isn’t the time to make a new one is responsible.

Is the reduction of abortions a net positive, if the ultimate result of it would be a greater decrease in the number of children being born (due to fewer couples having unprotected sex)?

The reduction of abortions is a net positive, even if the result is less life, because there is less death.

It is a simple and clear distinction. I don’t know how you missed it. Now granted, it wasn’t explicitly spelled out, but come on. You really don’t understand the motive?

If that’s too difficult for you…

Oh no, I got your point. It just makes no sense.

Well, using your logic, the same doesn’t apply to incest across the board.

Perhaps not, but I think you got my point.

Divide google-maps by two, and statistically speaking, you have the by-the-books “sex offenders” list for states that uphold ridiculous statuatory rape laws.

By your own logic, what stops her from having her husband euthanized so she can go on vacation?

Because the day before his car accident, Mary’s husband was aware that he existed in a timeline–that he could set goals today to be accomplished in the future. By euthanizing him, you are denying him that opportunity. Further, by legalizing the involuntary euthanasia of unconscious or temporarily comatoes persons, we would be decreasing the happiness of every single person on earth. If Mary’s husband knew someone else could legally end his life any time he lost consciousness, he’d have a very miserable life indeed!

(This is not at all comparable to abortion, for the only people aware of what abortion is are by definition incapable of experiencing it–ie, they are persons.)

By the way, Carrick, if you don’t mind me asking, why do you believe murder is wrong (ie, we have laws prohibiting it)?

In the second scenario, by not aborting her first child, Mary does not get to enjoy spring break. This causes a tiny, tiny decrease in her level of happiness, and does not increase anyone else’s. The first scenario is clearly preferable, in terms of maximizing happiness and minimizing unpleasantness.

Bet the kid’s not too chuffed about getting snuffed out.

The question stands now though, are you just Hedonist, or LaVeyan Satanist?

If you honestly believe that there’s no link between unprotected premarital sex and the widespread availability of abortion in America… wow.

If you think that premarital sex hinges on the availability of abortion, you’re just stupid.

Because NO ONE had premarital sex before abortion was legal! ….Oh….wait….

If you think the line “Don’t worry about a condom baby, you can always have an abortion…” flies, you know very little about women.

Epic fail.

Yes, the first child (let’s assume it was a male) never got to live; however, if Mary had chosen not to abort it, her second child (the daughter) would never have had the opportunity either.
Why, Neiman, would the first outcome be preferable to the second. We’re dealing with two future persons here: The potential son whom she conceived in February, and the potential daugher she conceives in August. Only one of them will live (Mary has already decided she only wants one child). Why does it matter to you which one lives and which one dies?

No sequitar. It doesn’t follow that if she never had an abortion that she’d never have a second child. In fact, she’ll be more likely to abort the second child if she aborts the first.

Moreover, the end game is one person. We either conceive two children and kill one, or we conceive and keep one. There’s something wrong with your moral compass if the first option is preferable.

I think, to give an example, Palin, who is staunchly pro-life, fouled any possible fence-voters, or pro-abortion voters with her comments about unconditional carrying to term, even as a result of rape or incest.

Again, I’ll be the one to say it.

If you were offended by Palin saying she’s carry a child to term if she was raped, or would concil her child to do the same…well there’s something wrong with you.

If you object to a woman putting the life of her child above herself, you’re a piece of human filth.

Suppose Mary decides that she wants to have 1 child and only 1 child with her husband, Paul. In February, she discovers she is pregnant. But, she doesn’t want to look fat during the summer (they live in Miami), so she has an abortion. In August of that year, she gets pregnant again, and 9 months later has a daughter. Can someone please explain:

1. Was anyone harmed in this scenario? If yes, whom?

2. Could this harm have been avoided if Mary’d had her tubes tied before marriage?

Neiman responded:

‘Was anyone harmed in this scenario? If yes, whom?’

Just an innocent human being, murdered in the womb, because a selfish bitch wanted to look good for the summer. Yeah, that’s a great reason to murder an innocent human being!

Yes, the first child (let’s assume it was a male) never got to live; however, if Mary had chosen not to abort it, her second child (the daughter) would never have had the opportunity either.

Why, Neiman, would the first outcome be preferable to the second. We’re dealing with two future persons here: The potential son whom she conceived in February, and the potential daugher she conceives in August. Only one of them will live (Mary has already decided she only wants one child). Why does it matter to you which one lives and which one dies?

More importantly, is there any moral significance in which one she chooses? Does one child have a stronger claim to life than the other? If so, which one?

It appears that you would prefer the scenario where Mary’s daughter–the second child you conceived–were to never have existed (because Mary kept her first child). This appears illogical to me. Can you elaborate why you’d rather her daughter never got a chance to walk the earth?

Eddie the Hated

Is there any moral discrepancy between killing a living human being, and deciding not to create a theoretical human being?

In the specific case of abortion: Absolutely, 100% unequivocally, no. There is no harm done in either case.

kenny:

Moreover, the end game is one person. We either conceive two children and kill one, or we conceive and keep one. There’s something wrong with your moral compass if the first option is preferable.

Why? In the first scenario, by aborting the first child, Mary gets to enjoy spring break. This increases her level of happiness, and does not decrease anyone else’s.

In the second scenario, by not aborting her first child, Mary does not get to enjoy spring break. This causes a tiny, tiny decrease in her level of happiness, and does not increase anyone else’s. The first scenario is clearly preferable, in terms of maximizing happiness and minimizing unpleasantness.

In both cases you are denying a potential person from being born. Why do you believe there is a significant moral difference–what harm do you believe you are stopping by forcing Mary to carry her first child to term, but not her second?

I know some welfare cases that live off the taxpayer dole.

Can we kill them?