You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Statler Waldorf]

Don't tell me you're a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" type of guy now, that would undermine your value of all life.

No, that wasn’t my point. I was pointing out the absurdity of trying to justify 21.6 million abortions by saying they help save the lives of 47,000 women.

Mothers have also aborted their babies for centuries, too. Not to mention the kind of life one leads as a rape-baby and rape-baby-momma. Yes, a bit of an appeal to emotion there. But it's a real statistic, a real situation, with real people, and real consequences. Not all people can have those rape babies and look the face of their rapist down every day with love. Are you as a governing body going to pay for these kids to be raised? Are kids that are alive now (under responsibility of the state) being raised adequately in any shape or form? I'd say that's a big fat no.

Are you really suggesting that prior to the legalization of abortion 1.2 million mothers either abandoned their babies or committed infanticide per year?

As one of my friends could tell you, even though he was abandoned by his mother, he still had a fighting chance…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psiDP9YwuSo

Unprecedented populations are what's new in this debate, Statler. What are your sides' plans to combat these issues? Because there's someone with a plan for those babies, and it involves money. Lots and lots, of money.

Are you really supporting the systematic murder of babies because there’s just too many people and they’re just too darn expensive? Really?

Prove to me more Americans are pro-life today than at any time since Roe--you said it, Pics or it didn't happen.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-a...-time.aspx

Not only this, but for the first time ever, more Americans support illegalizing all abortions under all circumstances over allowing all abortions under any circumstances. We’re making huge progress.

The initiative was proposed jointly by …

It’s Colorado, I am not surprised. What is really sad is that people are ignorant enough to think that personhood is something that can be voted upon in the first place. Slaves were people long before whites freed them.

Right, you got me. Define personhood for me, in your opinion. Preferably the legal definition seeing as we're arguing the legalities of abortion. The distinctions between moral personhood, legal personhood and constitutional personhood are significant. What kind of personhood are you talking about?

No, if I use the legal definition of a person then I am guilty of the Is/Ought Fallacy, simply because that is how we define personhood now does not mean that is the way we ought to define it. The only consistant way to define personhood is any living human being.

I don't know about yours, but in my "civilized society" the already formed and breathing being, aka: the mother--takes precedence over the baby in all trimesters.
Not to mention those cases where the fetus is going to be born into a horridly diseased life and is terminated 'humanely''. Or in cases where the mother's life is at risk which is completely legal in a many states, even before Roe vs Wade:

All you’re doing is proving that our society is not as civilized as the societies that have outlawed abortion.

I think from a monetary standpoint, again: abortion is going to win.

Sure, but nobody is arguing otherwise. If my mom had drowned me when I was three years old she would have saved a lot of money (and headaches ), but that does not mean she should have the moral or legal right to do so.

Everyone agrees with this. Why is it an issue still? Monetary costs. Where are you going to pull the money from to give towards this direction? Would it not be simpler to use your millions to fight for birth control and rape judgments if you truly care about how many are going to die? Because fight or not, money, or not--there will be abortions. The only difference between your way and another is how many more lawyers and lobbyists get paid.

Why can’t Obama just borrow the extra money from China? It’s a bit ironic when liberals all of the sudden pretend to be fiscally conservative once and only once someone brings up the issue of abortion. This same argument could be used to support infanticide and euthanasia.

'We' might be, but what is the constitutional definition of a baby? That's what matters, in the end, after all. The law. Obviously it's not what we consider it to be. How do you plan on changing law? There's more money in aborting than saving the fetuses, hands down bar none: long term and short term repercussions considered.

There are ways to change the law, we can pass a constitutional amendment like we did with abolishing slavery and establishing women’s suffrage. Another tactic is to have states outlaw abortions thus forcing the Supreme Court to hear the issue again. It can be done.

You still haven't proven how your side has science on its' side, either.

We now know that at the moment of conception the baby is alive and has it’s own unique and complete human genome. Therefore, scientifically it’s a living human being from the moment of conception. Abortionists used to argue that it was not alive, and was not fully human, they were clearly on the wrong side of the facts and cannot argue this anymore.

Nor have you shown me how you plan to plow through established law with money "like the 'abolitionishts'" who, by the way, caused a civil war.

That’s a bit of an over-simplification of why the Civil War was fought.

I checked out the National Abortion Federation, and they are indeed incorrect on the very science they claim 'anti-choice' proponents to be. They are also highly biased in their views. Maybe it's all the money. Either way, money and government have always been tied together. Maybe someone aught to fix that problem first, eh?

We can do it together

Are we talking about the moralistic murder of another human being, or the legal standpoint on the matter? The two vary, is why I ask.

The moralistic definition; which is what we try to follow with our legal definitions.

I'd beg the question to both of you, what constitutes an HLA in criminal court, so that an unborn fetus can be considered a person in a murder case and why is this reasoning not applied to all unborn fetuses?

I was going to bring this up above! Well played.

Husband kills wife and unborn baby= double murder.
Wife kills unborn baby= legal birth control.

Something is wrong with that picture.

So, essentially your response to my calling out your fallacious question begging was to continue begging the question, as though somehow asserting something enough times makes it factual.

Not at all, I simply gave you the definition of murder and pointed out the fact that your opinion does not change that definition. Definitions matter.

Must've been a long run Ah well, I'm back. Looks like there's another abortion thread now but hey.

Haha, it was! I am back though. I do not want to get dragged into another thread on abortion though, so I will keep my thoughts in this one.