Abortion

As a woman, and in the minority here, I think, I believe I have something to contribute to this thread.I think abortion is not a good thing. I don't know an pro-choice people who think it is no big deal. It IS a big deal.I think that we need to get much more serious about preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place instead of demonizing women who find themselves in the horrible position of having to choose.If they do have to choose, however, abortion needs to be safe, legal, and NOT a political issue.Part of the reason we have such a problem with unwanted pregnancy is because we are still in some kind of Puritain mindset when it comes to sex and birth control.We don't want to consider that little Johnny might be having sex with little Betty Ann, so we pretend they aren't, and we don't tell them about how people get pregnant and STD's, or what birth control options there are. Then, when Betty Ann is knocked up, Betty Ann, who was never prepared by her parents to be a resposible sexual being (because we just don't talk about these things) flakes out and pretends it isn't happening.In general, I am very mistrustful of Fundamentalist attitudes towards women; in particular, who gets to control a woman's body.I think it should be the woman, not the church and not the state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
As a woman, and in the minority here, I think, I believe I have something to contribute to this thread.

​

I think abortion is not a good thing. I don't know an pro-choice people who think it is no big deal. It IS a big deal.

​

I think that we need to get much more serious about preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place instead of demonizing women who find themselves in the horrible position of having to choose.

​

If they do have to choose, however, abortion needs to be safe, legal, and NOT a political issue.

​

Part of the reason we have such a problem with unwanted pregnancy is because we are still in some kind of Puritain mindset when it comes to sex and birth control.

​

We don't want to consider that little Johnny might be having sex with little Betty Ann, so we pretend they aren't, and we don't tell them about how people get pregnant and STD's, or what birth control options there are. Then, when Betty Ann is knocked up, Betty Ann, who was never prepared by her parents to be a resposible sexual being (because we just don't talk about these things) flakes out and pretends it isn't happening.

​

In general, I am very mistrustful of Fundamentalist attitudes towards women; in particular, who gets to control a woman's body.

​

I think it should be the woman, not the church and not the state.

​

---

Schraf.I agree with all you've said.An emotive issue, most certainly, but I would like to explore your position.At what point does a foetus/embryo become "human" enough to not abort? Conception? The point where medicine cannot support a baby outside the uterus? An arbitrary "20 weeks" (or whatever)?You see the problem. It's not so much that it is the womans right to abort, but the point where it becomes the unborn childs right not to be aborted.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I agree with the current law.The absolute sooner the better, of course.Also, if fetuses were considered human upon conception, then IUD's should be classified as abortive agents, because they prevent implantation.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I agree with the current law.

​

The absolute sooner the better, of course.

​

Also, if fetuses were considered human upon conception, then IUD's should be classified as abortive agents, because they prevent implantation.

​

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2002]

---

Firstly, we need to decide when a foetus becomes human. If we say that a newly fertilised egg is indeed a human (& it is, of course, the debate is whether it has RIGHTS as a human), then the contraceptive IUDs, morning after pills are indeed abortive agents.So, the question remains, where do we draw the line on when a newly conceived foetus (or is it zygote?), is & isn't human enough to have rights?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be so common.

Hello all
(sorry for the length of the post, I wanted to catch up)Cobra_snake "It also disturbs me that women think it is
"their right" to abort a child.
Mr. Cobra... who's "right" is it to abort if not a womans?
At what point does the *government* feel that it has the right to become involved in such a personal issue?
Would you agree to legislation that involved the gov't in all your medical decisions?Cobra_snake "This mindset is frightening; it's like the next disgusting step in the movement for womens rights. Not that I have a problem with equal women rights, but the right to kill babies is pushing it way too far."
What is "frightening" about a woman making a personal decision concerning the use of her body?
And may I point out that you seem terribly defensive about the "womens movement".
Also, what "babies" are you referring to?
A first trimester embryo/fetus is no more a "baby" than an egg is a chicken.
Right?-------------------------
joz "The exception here would be if the conception was the result of rape, if the child would develop to be severley mentaly or physicaly handicaped or if the mother was physically incapable of bringing the baby to term AND an attempt to bring said baby to term would endanger the mother."
Devils advocate for second here:
Why should conception by rape matter?
If the prenate is declared a legal person accorded all the rights of those born, then the circumstances of its conception are irrelavent.
The woman *must* carry to term, otherwise you violate the zef's supposed rights.Also, should women be forced to carry to term against their wishes?
Are psychological and emotional health of no consequence?joz "More importantly nobody should be forced to bear and raise children it should be a voluntary action that everyone is free to choose but not forced into."
Agree 100%.joz "So to sum up criminalizing abortion won`t stop it happening."
Yeppers... and we have ample evidence that it didnt.joz "In some cases it is a legitimate if hard to accept option."
Absolutely no one who supports legal abortion seriously characterizes it as an "easy option".joz "Childbearing should be a optional joy rather than a mandatory burden."
Yep.
Women should not be forced by out government to be brood mares.--------------------------
Asteragros "Only, I ask for one thing: consistency. If it is right (for any reasons)to delete from the existence a person at his start, why don't we consider right also erasing a person in another point of his existence? What's the difference?
None, by logic. And all of us are aware of this fact."
The difference is that at birth a fully acutalized, self-sufficient entity exists and not before.
The difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus (zef for short) and a new born are significant, both in physical development and social significance.---------------------------
KingPenguin "yeah i didnt go anywhere but i was thinking of more of preventing late abortions.
Late term abortions are those done after 27 weeks LMP(last menstral period) and are done only to save the life of the woman or to terminate a non-viable fetus.
http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/jsc80006.htmMost abortion clinics provide services to only between 16 and 20 weeks LMP.----------------------
minnemooseus "Abortion should not be a preferred method of birth control. And if abortion is to be done, the earlier in the pregnancy, the better."
Abortion shouldnt be used as birth control at all.
But the simple task of educating our young people on basic human sexuality is being made ridiculously difficult by those with a religious agenda.
"Abstinance only" my ass. minnemooseus "I question the wisdom of those (most prominently, the Catholic Church), who are effective in suppressing less offensive birth control methods, and as a result, in a sense, promote abortion."
The RCC's involvement in this arena in various parts of Africa should lead to charges of crimes against humanity in the world court.minnemooseus "I often wonder how much the "pro-life" perspective cares about the qualities of the lives of the mother and new child, who were somehow persuaded away from abortion."
One only has to peruse the "official" Pro Life sites to understand the fanatical fetal worship that seems to embody the movement.minnemooseus"Lastly, is the "pro-life" perspective, in part, promoting more later term abortions, by effectivly suppressing early term abortions?"
They would if they werent being fought tooth and nail.--------------------
mark24 "At what point does a foetus/embryo become "human" enough to not abort? Conception?"
In the US, legal personhood begins at birth.
Human sperm and ova can only create human zef."The point where medicine cannot support a baby outside the uterus? An arbitrary "20 weeks" (or whatever)?"
Whats wrong with birth?"You see the problem. It's not so much that it is the womans right to abort, but the point where it becomes the unborn childs right not to be aborted."
No, in fact the point is distinctly that of a womans rights being superceded by those of the zef residing within her.An excerpt from Peter Singers "Practical Ethics" that presents the issue about being "human".
pg 85-86
It is possible to give "human being" a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to "member of the species Homo sapiens". Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disable human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic - literally, without a brain.There is another use of the term "human", one proposed by Joseph Fletcher, a Protestant theologian and a prolific writer on ethical issues. Fletcher has compiled a list of what he calls "indicators of humanhood" that includes the following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity. This is the sense of the term that *we* have in mind when we praise someone by saying that she is "a real human being" or shows "truly human qualities". In saying this we are not, of course, referring to the person's membership in the species Homo sapiens which as a matter of biological fact is rarely in doubt; we are implying that human beings characteristically possess certain qualities, and this person possess them to a high degree.These two sense of "human being" overlap but do not coincide. The embryo, the fetus, the profoundly intellectually disabled child, even the newborn infant - all are indisputably members of the species Homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of the future, or the capacity to relate to others. Hence the choice between the two sense can make an important difference to how we answer questions like "Is the fetus a human being?"
-------------------
There is little doubt that the existance of certain portions of the brain are tied directly to our conception of what constitutes a human being.
Humans without a cerebral cortex simply do not fit the criteria any more than the corpse of "Uncle Ed" is really Uncle Ed.But regardless, in the end, the central issue is one of individual rights versus government control.
And on this issue, individual rights should always win out.brett

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

"The point where medicine cannot support a baby outside the uterus? An arbitrary "20 weeks" (or whatever)?"

​

Whats wrong with birth?

​

---

Whats right with it? We're talking "potential" human beings here, so why not up to the age of consent? Or puberty? Why not put a toddler to "sleep", because he/she's not wanted?Sounds silly, I know, but what REASON is there to say before birth you can be topped, after, you can't? Because the babies still in the mother? So what? I fail to see the relevance.What I'm driving for, is a REASON to draw a line. Before this it is legal, after, it isn't. Just drawing one & saying "there", doesn't accomplish very much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

"You see the problem. It's not so much that it is the womans right to abort, but the point where it becomes the unborn childs right not to be aborted."

​

No, in fact the point is distinctly that of a womans rights being superceded by those of the zef residing within her.

---

Exactly right. So, if you can't reason out a criteria for aborting a life at any particular stage of pregnancy, then you can't apply a criteria at all. So you either get rid of people of all ages that are unwanted, or don't.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

//Whats right with it?//
Aside from the fact that this criteria has served quite well from time immemorial?Whats "right" is that birth is the event that creates fully actualized, independent human beings.
In all honesty there is little to support according infants full rights as they dont achieve anything like self-awareness until 4 or 5 months post birth.
Using birth as the specific point where legal rights are awarded at least avoids the criteria of having to prove humanness.//We're talking "potential" human beings here, so why not up to the age of consent?//
Why not from a wet dream?
Thats as much "potential" as anything else.//Or puberty? Why not put a toddler to "sleep", because he/she's not wanted?//
Because they're born.
Obviously seperate.
And no longer dependent on a host for life.//Sounds silly, I know, but what REASON is there to say before birth you can be topped, after, you can't?//
Indeed it does sound silly, which is why it isnt reality.
Beacuse *before* birth prenates dont have rights and they certainly dont have rights that supercede those of the woman within whom they reside.//Because the babies still in the mother?//
What "babies"?
Oh, you mean the fetus?
Yes.
Because the fetus is still in the woman.
(mothers happen after birth)//So what?//
So, everything.//I fail to see the relevance.//
Not my problem.//What I'm driving for, is a REASON to draw a line.//
A reason exists.
Birth seperates us from our mothers.
Prior to birth we are reliant upon them for life.Its not that complicated.//Before this it is legal, after, it isn't.//
Correct.
Before birth, the government shouldnt be involved with a womans reproductive choices(within reason) so that her individual rights are compromised.
After birth, the government has the obligation to protect each and every individual equally, regardless of age.Again, not that complicated.//Just drawing one & saying "there", doesn't accomplish very much.//
Even when its a really, really obvious "there"?Sorry, Mark, but the bulk of antiquity just doesnt agree.---------------
"You see the problem. It's not so much that it is the womans right to abort, but the point where it becomes the unborn childs right not to be aborted."brett: No, in fact the point is distinctly that of a womans rights being superceded by those of the zef residing within her.//Exactly right.//
Glad you agree.
Now, why is it that you support reducing pregnant women to second class citizens?//So, if you can't reason out a criteria for aborting a life at any particular stage of pregnancy, then you can't apply a criteria at all.//
While I applaud your attempt at an "either/or" framing of the situation, this is utter nonsense.//So you either get rid of people of all ages that are unwanted, or don't.//
Sigh.
Sorry, repetition doesnt make it any less of a logical fallacy.brett

​

[This message has been edited by bretheweb, 02-22-2002]

I think it will be fine as long as people don't get offended or purposelly try to offend someone.

Oh, I quite agree.However, I see the Pro Life attempt to illegalize abortion as a blatant form of social/political fascism.And you?brett

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Whats right with it?//

​

Aside from the fact that this criteria has served quite well from time immemorial?

​

---

Infanticide has been practiced in some cultures. Because it’s happened doesn’t mean it’s right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

Whats "right" is that birth is the event that creates fully actualized, independent human beings.

---

No, birth doesn’t create a fully actualised independent human being, so, by your own standards, birth is a poor indicator of when it is reasonable to abort a life. A baby will die if left to its own devices. It needs sustenance provided by others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

In all honesty there is little to support according infants full rights as they dont achieve anything like self-awareness until 4 or 5 months post birth.

​

Using birth as the specific point where legal rights are awarded at least avoids the criteria of having to prove humanness.

---

Avoiding the criteria of when something becomes human is avoiding the issue entirely. This is precisely what MUST be determined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//We're talking "potential" human beings here, so why not up to the age of consent?//
Why not from a wet dream?
Thats as much "potential" as anything else.

---

Sperm alone has no potential to become human. A fertilised egg is already a diploid, genetically human organism. So, why not up to the age of consent?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Or puberty? Why not put a toddler to "sleep", because he/she's not wanted?//
Because they're born.
Obviously seperate.
And no longer dependent on a host for life.

---

So? Why does dependence make a human worthless? Are people in comas worthless? Severely disabled people? This cannot be used as a criteria unless you’re seriously suggesting dependent people should be killed by the people who look after them, due to the inconvenience factor.Why does not being born yet, or being reliant on a host make you a candidate for abortion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Sounds silly, I know, but what REASON is there to say before birth you can be topped, after, you can't?//
Indeed it does sound silly, which is why it isnt reality.
Beacuse *before* birth prenates dont have rights and they certainly dont have rights that supercede those of the woman within whom they reside.

---

I said it sounds silly, not it WAS silly. I am asking you to rationalise, morally & ethically, why unborn (or otherwise) homo sapiens are worth so much less as it to be considered reasonable to terminate their lives because they are an inconvenience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//So what?//
//I fail to see the relevance.//
So, everything.
Not my problem.

---

What sort of answers this? It IS your problem. You are in a discussion on the morality of abortion. It is incumbent on you to explain WHY you are morally/ethically worth more after birth than before. Just saying a baby is worth more than a foetus is an assertion. Explain WHY.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//What I'm driving for, is a REASON to draw a line.//
A reason exists.
Birth seperates us from our mothers.
Prior to birth we are reliant upon them for life.

​

Its not that complicated.

---

You are ENTIRELY dependent on another person after your birth. So birth cannot be the line that separates whether you can be aborted or not, by your own criteria. So, yes, it IS that complicated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Before this it is legal, after, it isn't.//
Correct.
Before birth, the government shouldnt be involved with a womans reproductive choices(within reason) so that her individual rights are compromised.
After birth, the government has the obligation to protect each and every individual equally, regardless of age.

​

Again, not that complicated.

---

Again, just assertions, with no REASONS why someone is morally/ethically worth less BEFORE they are born. US law is irrelevant to morals & ethics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Just drawing one & saying "there", doesn't accomplish very much.//
Even when its a really, really obvious "there"?

​

Sorry, Mark, but the bulk of antiquity just doesnt agree.

---

The bulk of antiquity matters not a jot. So, because people do it, it must be right? What sort of logic is this? I am trying to debate you on the REASONS for assuming a human is worth less at one stage of its development than another. Referring to history doesn’t advance your argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

​

"You see the problem. It's not so much that it is the womans right to abort, but the point where it becomes the unborn childs right not to be aborted."

​

brett: No, in fact the point is distinctly that of a womans rights being superceded by those of the zef residing within her.

​

//Exactly right.//
Glad you agree.
Now, why is it that you support reducing pregnant women to second class citizens?

---

See below.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//So you either get rid of people of all ages that are unwanted, or don't.//
Sigh.
Sorry, repetition doesnt make it any less of a logical fallacy.

---

Please elaborate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//So, if you can't reason out a criteria for aborting a life at any particular stage of pregnancy, then you can't apply a criteria at all.//
While I applaud your attempt at an "either/or" framing of the situation, this is utter nonsense.

---

Utter nonsense? More unbacked assertions! Tell me why I’m wrong. Just saying so won’t help you.Brett,I should make my position clear. I WANT to accept your point of view on this, & I fully accept the point you make on the womans body being her own. I am hovering between camps, on one side, the liberal pro-choice view is the normal camp I would fall into. On the other hand I find it hard to rationalise aborting a human life because they are inconvenient.So, I’m going to allow you to convince me (believe me, I want you to succeed).You need to convince me that a zef is morally & ethically worth less than a baby, to the point that the womans right to not be pregnant, is worth more than another humans right to live.Failure to do this means that I WOULD (playing devils advocate) see pregnant women reduced to second class citizens, because it is the lesser of the two evils. Nine months pregnancy, does not equate to three score years & ten years that the zef has to look forward to.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

//Infanticide has been practiced in some cultures. Because it’s happened doesn’t mean it’s right.//
Stay focused here for me Mark.
No one is talking about infanticide.
BTW, infanticide is still being practiced, as is slavery.//No, birth doesn’t create a fully actualised independent human being,//
Yes, actualy, birth does.
You'll have to provide convincing proof otherwise.//so, by your own standards, birth is a poor indicator of when it is reasonable to abort a life.//
No, Mark, you're simply attempting to sidestep the issue.
*YOU* may not like that birth is a perfectly servicable indicator of legal personhood or even "humanbeing-ness", so you'll have to present a convincing argument against it.//A baby will die if left to its own devices. It needs sustenance provided by others.//
Hell, Mark, most teenagers will die if left to their own devices.
But that newborn can now be nourished by *ANYONE*, not just its mother.
Ergo, it is independent.
You know... they *cut* the umbilical cord, right?//Avoiding the criteria of when something becomes human is avoiding the issue entirely.//
How is self-awareness as a criteria "avoiding" the issue?Did you understand what Dr. Singer was saying?//This is precisely what MUST be determined.//
Mark, since self-awareness is something that happens *AFTER* birth, and infanticide is unacceptable,birth is perfectly adequate to the task of this determination.//Sperm alone has no potential to become human.//
Irrelavent.
Potential is potential.
Just because *you* are not comfortable with where *I* draw the line doesnt make it any less potential.//A fertilised egg is already a diploid, genetically human organism. So, why not up to the age ofconsent?//
Because the age of consent is after birth.
Pretty simple, eh?//So? Why does dependence make a human worthless? Are people in comas worthless? Severely disabled people?//
Sigh... I cant help you build your strawman.//This cannot be used as a criteria unless you’re seriously suggesting dependent people should be killed by the people who look after them, due to the inconvenience factor.//
Sure it can.
Those "dependent people", as you define them here, are born, actualized human beings and therefore protected by law.Prenates, no matter how much you dont like this, are not.And yes, a pregnant woman is in fact the sole "determiner" of the worth of the contents of her womb.
Not me, not you, not the government.
Why does this seem so threatening?//Why does not being born yet, or being reliant on a host make you a candidate for abortion?//
Because thats the way nature works, Mark.
I didnt invent it.
The girls get to carry the offspring... and so the girls get to determine the outcome.//I said it sounds silly, not it WAS silly.//
ROFL
The difference being?
Since neither of us has heard the others accent, just what part is "silly"?//I am asking you to rationalise, morally & ethically, why unborn (or otherwise) homo sapiens are worth so much less as it to be considered reasonable to terminate their lives because they are an inconvenience.//
Since you seem to have missed it last time I'll quote myself.
"Beacuse *before* birth prenates dont have rights and they certainly dont have rights that supercede those of the woman within whom they reside."But just to be fair, let me ask you to rationalize, morally and ethically, why born homo sapien females are worth so much less as it is considered reasonable to force them, against their wills, to carry a pregnancy to term just to comply with someone elses morals/ethics?//What sort of answers this?//
Its the sort of answer you should expect to those sorts of statements.//It IS your problem.//
No, Mark, your inability to comprehend is not my problem.
Sorry... you'll have to take full responsibility for that.//You are in a discussion on the morality of abortion.//
Please try not to point out the obvious.
Its inane.//It is incumbent on you to explain WHY you are morally/ethically worth more after birth than before.//
*How* Mark, if you fail to see the relavence and reply with "so what"?//Just saying a baby is worth more than a foetus is an assertion.//
Sigh.
Again with the strawmen.//Explain WHY.//
What part of "because it is born" are you failing to internalize?//You are ENTIRELY dependent on another person after your birth.//
A newborn is "entirely dependent" on *ANY* person.
It is no longer entirely dependent on its mother.
Does the phrase "wet nurse" mean anything to you?Last time I checked its not common practice for women to share a pregnancy.//So birth cannot be the line that separates whether you can be aborted or not, by your own criteria. So, yes, it IS that complicated.//
ROFLMAO
I just love when people tell me what I think.
If you'll read back Mark, you'll notice that I never said that birth was the line that seperates whether you can be aborted or not.
In this country birth is the indicator of legal personhood.
Limits on abortion are governed by gestational age or medical need.From *my* perspective, however, birth should be the only limit on abortion.
From my perspective the government has absolutely no right to dictate anything regarding obviously personal, individual right to reproduce, or not to, as the case may be.At no point should a womans rights be compromised by the contents of her uterus.//Again, just assertions, with no REASONS why someone is morally/ethically worth less BEFORE they are born.//
They're not assertions, Mark, they're facts.And as much as you keep attempting to imply that I'm saying that prenates are "worthless", I'll keep pointing out the strawman.//US law is irrelevant to morals & ethics.//
Not in the US it isnt champ.So what you are looking for is a "universal" set of ethics to live by?
Good luck.Heres a quick question then... when will you ever face a situation where you might abort?//The bulk of antiquity matters not a jot.//
You could have fooled me sport.
The SCOTUS Roe V Wade decision is firmly based on British and US common law, as well as early Greek and Jewish law.
That whole "Western Civilization" thing, I guess.//So, because people do it, it must be right?//
Follow along Mark.
I was pointing out that even societies prior to this one acknowledged and understood the importance of birth.//What sort of logic is this?//
Again, your ability to construct strawman logical fallacies is astounding.
Pointless, but astounding.//I am trying to debate you on the REASONS for assuming a human is worth less at one stage of itsdevelopment than another.//
And your obvious discomfort with the simplicity of it is telling.//Referring to history doesn’t advance your argument.//
It does when I point out that even "less advanced" civilizations got it.
And that the basis for SCOTUS decisions reflect that understanding.//See below.//
Does it get any better than the above?//Please elaborate.//
Stop repeating yourself.//Utter nonsense?//
Yeppers.//More unbacked assertions!//
Only to you, Mark.
Remember you said you couldnt see the relavence?//Tell me why I’m wrong. Just saying so won’t help you.//
I've been trying to Mark.
You dont seem to be getting it.
Again, not my problem.//I should make my position clear. I WANT to accept your point of view on this, & I fully accept the point you make on the womans body being her own. I am hovering between camps, on one side, the liberalpro-choice view is the normal camp I would fall into. On the other hand I find it hard to rationaliseaborting a human life because they are inconvenient.//
Mark.
As much as I appreciate you attempting to make your beliefs my problem, I take no responsibility whatsoever for them.
I care not one whit as to which "camp" you join.
You are not convincing me at all that you are "wavering" based on your obvious Lifer rhetoric.
"Inconvenience"?
Please.//So, I’m going to allow you to convince me (believe me, I want you to succeed).//
Excuse me while I gaffaw loudly in disbelief.I've presented this as simply as can be presented, Mark.
Your decisions are your own.//You need to convince me that a zef is morally & ethically worth less than a baby, to the point that the womans right to not be pregnant, is worth more than another humans right to live.//
Right after you convince me that it is morally and ethically acceptable to reduce a born human woman to the status of broodmare.Take your time.
I've not seen it yet.//Failure to do this means that I WOULD (playing devils advocate) see pregnant women reduced to secondclass citizens, because it is the lesser of the two evils.//
Just curious, is the word "facist" in your dictionary?That you would categorize abortion as an "evil" is telling as well.How about we just jam that fetus into one of your body cavities while it gestates?
After all, its only "9 months".
Right?//Nine months pregnancy, does not equate to three score years & ten years that the zef has to look forward to.//
And at what point were you honestly "wavering" on this issue?You seem well aware of your position with no input from me.Mark, I do so despise intellecual dishonesty.
Try not to let it happen too often.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

Bret,What Mark is doing is playing devils advocate, assuming a position that he does not agree with which is opposed to your position in order that the discussion may continue....Your responses to his questions are bordering on ad hom attacks so please tone it down a lot of what you post is intelligent and weel thought out and it is a shame to spoil it.....After all Marks questions allow the discussion to move ahead....So answer the questions without resorting to ad hom.....

Howdy Joz.
Feel free to actually respond to something I've posted.And just so you know mate, I dont really care what motivates Mark.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:
Howdy Joz.
1)Feel free to actually respond to something I've posted.

​

2)And just so you know mate, I dont really care what motivates Mark.

​

brett

---

1)Why? I seem to remember that in your first post here you pretty much agreed with my position on the matter.....2)Thats fine however your replies border on the ad hom so please follow Percys guidelines and "debate the issue not the person"....