You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Statler Waldorf]

Wow, this thread caught fire again (thanks MissLuckie), unfortunately I have to go for my run, but I will try to respond by Thursday. Have a great evening all! -SW

[Mystical]

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

[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.

[Esquilax]

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.

Which assumes personhood on behalf of a fetus. My submission is that no such personhood exists up until a certain point, making that definition meaningless in the context of your broad, no-abortions-at-all stance.

[Foxaèr]

Not at all, I simply gave you the definition of murder.

I doubt it.

Murder is illegal. Do you understand that which is illegal? Abortion is "legal". Do you understand that? Therefore, abortion is not murder.

Do you understand that?

I swear, it is like attempting to teach a child. Their attention spans are not that great and they would rather have what they want than what is grounded in reality.

[Statler Waldorf]

Which assumes personhood on behalf of a fetus. My submission is that no such personhood exists up until a certain point, making that definition meaningless in the context of your broad, no-abortions-at-all stance.

Apparently you believe that another human being’s personhood is dependent upon what you believe; so if a white supremacist believes that blacks are not people, then he is not committing moralistic murder by killing them?

It is illogical to create a false distinction between a person and a living human being. Given the definition of the term, a fetus is a person, your opinion will not change that.

Person-
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

(Webster’s)

Murder is illegal. Do you understand that which is illegal? Abortion is "legal". Do you understand that? Therefore, abortion is not murder.

Your ilk in the 1820s- “It is not illegal to kill your slave, therefore slaves are not people and killing your slave is not murder.”

We’re trying to change the laws because killing your unborn baby is murder and therefore should be illegal.

Do you understand that?

I swear, it is like attempting to teach a child. Their attention spans are not that great and they would rather have what they want than what is grounded in reality.

Even a child would understand that even if killing someone were legal it’d still be murder; children understand what you apparently do not, that the way things are does not prove anything in regards to the way things ought to be.

[Mystical]

C'mon Esqui, debate this.. for me?

[Esquilax]

Apparently you believe that another human being’s personhood is dependent upon what you believe; so if a white supremacist believes that blacks are not people, then he is not committing moralistic murder by killing them?

Well, that's a mighty fine strawman, but since you're drawing it from a single line on my part, I'd say you're probably inaccurate in your depiction of my position.

It is illogical to create a false distinction between a person and a living human being. Given the definition of the term, a fetus is a person, your opinion will not change that.

I'll tear into your definition below in a second, but I'd add that a human being is defined by a number of biological traits in the first place, not least of them being an ability to survive outside of the womb. Humans are defined as apart from other animals with regards to their physical form, and a fetus lacks a number of those traits, inside and out, for quite a lengthy period in its gestation, like, say, a fully developed brain, and organs, and sensory capabilities... you know, all those specific things that humans have that separate us from other animals and set us in a classification of our own? How many of them are you willing to take away and still define something as human?

Human beings are people, but not everything that comes from a human is itself a human.

Person-
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

Is a dead body a person? Because that's all you're really arguing, that it's the flesh that ascribes personhood, and given that a fetus isn't in any way human looking as it develops, this is hardly the best definition you should be using.

[Statler Waldorf]

C'mon Esqui, debate this.. for me?

Come on MissLuckie, I know that you see the absurdity in making personhood dependent upon someone else’s opinion. Something is either a person or it is not, regardless of what we may think.

Well, that's a mighty fine strawman, but since you're drawing it from a single line on my part, I'd say you're probably inaccurate in your depiction of my position.

You seemed to claim that a fetus is not a person simply because you believe it is not a person; or is there actually a legitimate reason why a fetus is not a person? If there is, then I am interested in hearing it.

I'll tear into your definition below in a second,

It’s not my definition, it’s the dictionary’s. That’s the difference between you and me; I do not base any of this upon my own arbitrary opinion.

but I'd add that a human being is defined by a number of biological traits in the first place, not least of them being an ability to survive outside of the womb.

That is not part of the definition of being a human being; that’s your own arbitrary and self-serving qualifier that you’ve added to the definition of being a human (it’s no different than saying you must be white to be human, or you must have a penis to be human). A human is simply any organism possessing a human genome.

Humans are defined as apart from other animals with regards to their physical form, and a fetus lacks a number of those traits, inside and out, for quite a lengthy period in its gestation, like, say, a fully developed brain, and organs, and sensory capabilities... you know, all those specific things that humans have that separate us from other animals and set us in a classification of our own? How many of them are you willing to take away and still define something as human?

Again, that is not how we define humanity. Humanity is defined by our genetics, not our morphology. Given your reasoning, a person born without legs would not be a human because they didn’t look like the rest of us; or an eight year old boy would not be a human because he didn’t possess fully developed sex organs. It’s this exact same mentality that leads to people believing those who merely look different than they do are not humans. Whenever we find remains we always test their DNA in order to determine if they are human remains or not.

Human beings are people, but not everything that comes from a human is itself a human.

Sure, but every entity that possesses its own human DNA is a human being; trying to argue against that leads to absurdities that neither you nor I will accept.

Is a dead body a person? Because that's all you're really arguing, that it's the flesh that ascribes personhood, and given that a fetus isn't in any way human looking as it develops, this is hardly the best definition you should be using.

It’s not the flesh, it’s the DNA. That’s the dictionary’s definition, and the only reason you do not like it is because it proves abortion is murder.

It’s troubling that you insist on using the same reasoning white supremacists use…

“Well he doesn’t look like the rest of us, so therefore he must not be a person and we’re therefore justified in killing him!”

“Well the fetus doesn’t look like the rest of us, so therefore it must not be a person and we’re therefore justified in killing it!”

Whenever your argument can be used to deduce conclusions that you will not accept, it’s an indicator that you need to relinquish that argument.

[Ryantology]

Whenever your argument can be used to deduce conclusions that you will not accept, it’s an indicator that you need to relinquish that argument.

I assume that this is admission that Christians really do believe that rape, slavery, mass murder, and torture are acceptable behaviors. Even abortion, as the God of the Bible has no qualm ordering the slaughter of infants in and out of the womb. Or, in at least one instance, using swords to remove it. Because killing babies is awesome when God commands it done. That's to say nothing of how he designed the human body so that the majority of potential babies die long before they become viable. According to the National Institute of Health:

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

Praise God, for the number of abortions to his credit must number in the tens, if not hundreds, of billions more than all human abortionists, combined. Shitty design or killing for fun? You decide.

Naturally, you will respond with some horseshit about how nothing can be evil if it is God's will, as you and your kind always do, but when your only recourse is to make a special plea, it’s an indicator that you need to relinquish that argument.