You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Mystical]

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.

Looks around*
Are you--are you talking to me?
I thought we'd talked about this several times already. I don't justify 21.6 million abortions. I'm against the use of abortion. I am also pro choice. Make of that what you will, but certainly don't draw a line in black and white for me to choose a side. I'll always choose humanity. That includes the mother who is a human. Potential human life is the same thing as human life to me, as it is to criminal courts. But potential is not a sure thing, now is it? I have the potential to make myself a millionaire in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I'm going to be one.
We're not talking about what I believe to be human or what you or Esqui believe to be human, we're talking about the laws that govern humanity and what they believe to be human, and what constitutes a fetus to be considered a human. As of right now, fetuses are not considered human persons until a certain point in the pregnancy.
I agree with these points, Statler. A dead body isn't a person although it's human. A fetus with no brain cannot think or be self aware as is humanity defined. An egg is not a chicken until it's a chicken. Otherwise we'd be eating green chickens and ham. We're trying to go past this, to pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes a person. It's not easy, but it's the only way to get anything done in the direction you're advocating for. Can't you see I'm on your side?

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?

Looks around again*
I was saying that you've got a large burden of proof to make if you are contesting that person-hood begins at conception. I myself am against the use of abortion for myself, but that's only as far as my beliefs go. I will not impose my beliefs on other people, I'll leave that up to the law. If there's a reasonable case lined out for why a fetus is not a human person as defined by the law then I will support the law. Because people far more educated than us are the ones debating it, and as I've stated: potential human life is not the same as a human life. Granted, I would have been anti-slavery. But that was as simple as black and white, this is not. This is far more intricate than that.
What makes you believe a fertilized egg is any different from an unfertilized egg in any way that can be related to the definition of humanity or personhood?

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.

Here's the breakdown of the questionnaires for that poll.

Princeton University Polling Results

And an image from your link.


From the beginning of the poll taking data (1975), to most recent on this chart (2009):
Legality under certain circumstances: ~52%/~52%
Legality under any circumstances: ~20%/~21%
Illegal in all circumstances: ~21%/~21%

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.

Ignorant would be allowing or disallowing abortions based on no information whatsoever. The debate needs to be made. Seeing as how the consensus in liberal states is appx 70% against human being being defined from the moment of conception, and then in conservative states like Texas having trouble defining it as such too: I'd say you're claim is untrue.
What it looks like to me is Americans want a clear definition of person-hood and humanity in terms of a fetus.

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.

Right and I'm saying that your is/ought stance is what's going to waste more efforts, time, and money and in the end cost more "lives". If you want to change the status quo, you need to bend in a way that will improve the situation not just shut it down altogether. Cuz that's not going to happen.

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.

Lay in a bed where whenever you vomit you have a seizure and whenever you seizure you vomit. You shit your pants, you have a nurse 24/7 no exceptions and you're constantly suffering. Then let me know if you think your mom having you was humane if she knew you'd be having a life like that. Oh and then go visit your daughters' gravestone from dying in the hospital in front of helpless doctors' eyes because the law said she was not to be touched even if her life was at risk during pregnancy.
I'm proving our society is more humane than others. The fact that you can't see that is telling.

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.

This comparison is non sequiter. You're a human defined as humanity by the law at the age of 3. Potential life is not the same as life. Unless you can prove life in a fertilized egg, in which case go for it. You still have to prove person-hood after that.

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.

Hey considering the deficit has been cut by half since Obama took office (look it up), I'd say he probably does have the money for it. Just like foster care is run today--is it preferable? Hell no. Foster care and adoption services are sub par at best. You can't buy love or happiness. You can however, buy an abortion. If your intentions were pure you'd see that to stop abortions, you have to actually do the hard work that goes with it rather than throw your money to the wind in a pissing contest.

'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.

Do you hear yourself? The Supreme Court heard this issue. And nothing has come up since that has caused it to sway its' decision. As far as I can tell you lost, and you haven't accepted it yet.

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.

There in lies your problem. You can't prove what's a living human being because you don't have YOUR definition as the official terminology. If I were you I'd look into why that is.

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.

Agreed
But you have yet to demonstrate why I should take your side over the other. Whats your plan for illegalization of abortion?

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

Okay then! Let's do this. How are you proposing to do this? I already stated my proposition.

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.

Define moralistic definition and legal definition as you know it before we continue please.

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.

A potential life being interrupted by outside forces like murder where the life would have been had it not been for the act of the murder---and a potential life ended by the very being that carries it and supports it biologically, are not the same thing.