I’m not saying murder is okay, I’m saying that no matter how you look at things, whether it’s abortion or war, it is accepted one way or another. I’m not saying that murder, death, kill is acceptable. I’m saying that in certain situations, it is the outcome. So pro-life advocates should not use the argument that abortion is murder and that it is wrong because then they would have to hold the same standards for ALL cases (war, etc.). I’m personally Pro-choice, Pro-War and Pro-death penalty. Does that mean I think murder, death, kill is acceptable? No. But it is an outcome depending on the situation and choices made.
shit, forgot to close the tag. Too busy rushing to get to a meeting, sorry all.
Again, not injecting my viewpoint into this argument, but Nate’s killing himself in this discussion.
Exactly! This is the message I have tried to convey twice now. When we are asking the question “when does a human being become a human being?”, we are talking about definitions which are, in large part, based on moralality and personal opinion. Science measures certain things, but does not answer the question for us – this is something that we must do as individuals and as a society. For some, Roe v. Wade and its progeny set the bar too high, and for others, too low. Some believe that the issue is not properly a Constitutional one (whether they believe the landmark decision was correct or not), some believe that it should be left to the Congress and some believe that it is a state’s rights issue. Regarless of where one falls in this spectrum, the underlying question remains the same, at what point in time do we define a human being to be a human being? There are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate (actually there are more than two positions in this debate), but one must realize that there is no absolutely correct scientific answer to the question.
You missed my point. The point is that the US should be able to do what it wants, if we want to start war legal war with a country we should… WITHOUT having to beg the UN. The whole point of what I said was that we are the only super power we should act like it and not pander to a supposedly non goverment organization that we mostly fund and that without us would crumble. I am also not saying that we should go around a destroy what we please and be bullies. The people and goverment of
a country decide what that country will do not a collective body of foreign goverments
Maybe I’m not articulating this correctly so you can understand what I’m trying to say. If you’re pro-life and consider abortion murder, then you should also hold the same view regarding war and the death penalty. Otherwise it seems hypocritical that abortion is murder but the death penalty and war is acceptable. Are you technically “killing” a “life?” Yes, depending on how you view when life begins. But that is the choice that is made when deciding to abort. And for some people, abortion is the best choice for their situation and no government should tell someone they can’t have an abortion. And like I said earlier, I don’t think partial-birth abortions should be legal or practiced. If someone is going to make the decision to have an abortion (and yes, this is a tough decision for all involved), then they should do it within the first trimester when most are performed. And for those who want to have an abortion, RU486 should be an option. But that has not been approved by the FDA for use in the U.S. at this time.
Do you really equate the execution of someone who has chosen to break the laws of society and murder someone with the slaughter of completely innocent babies?
I’m not saying that the those who break the laws by society should not be punished. And I already said I was all for the death penalty. Maybe my arguement does not have enough reasoning when pro-lifers use the “it’s murder on innocent babies” routine. I’m not saying it’s okay to “slaughter innocent babies.” You make it sound like millions of women are lined up and waiting to have their babies killed (which has happened in other countries in the past. I believe there is a story in the bible about it too, but I digress). Pro-lifers can use whatever tactics they feel necessary to state their case. All I’ve been trying to say is that I’m pro-choice, and I don’t think the government should have any say in making it illegal for someone to have an abortion if they feel so necessary to do so. 'Nuff said. This is not going to go anywhere. I’ve stated my stand on the issue. It’s not going to change. Just as yours will not change. It’s my opinion versus your opinion. And you know what they say, “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.”
Nate, it’s not that stating your opinion is wrong. Like you said, everybody’s entitled to one. The problem is that you’re equating abortion to killing in wartime. The fact that you can’t see with problem with this is actually quite disturbing. It would be one thing if you were using the whole “don’t know when life begins” argument, but you’re actually COMPARING abortion to wartime killings. Please stop for a minute and think long and hard about that. In the words of John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”
I was trying to make a point that didn’t quite work out the way I originally intended. I don’t consider abortion murder, even though it may be in some people’s eyes. You’re right, you can use the whole “when life begins” argument, and that’s one argument I could make.
How about this scenario for all you Pro-Lifers: You have a 16-year-old teenage daughter that makes straight A’s and plays sports. She’s hoping to get a scholarship to college in (choose your sport of liking). And she has a boyfriend, that you actually like. But, she happens to get pregnant (even though you gave her great sex education). She wants to abort the baby because she wants to finish school and continue playing sports and get that scholarship to college. What do you do? Do you tell her no because abortion is wrong? Do you tell her that she can have the baby and either you help raise the child or have it adopted? Do you tell her everything will work out fine and she can still stay in school, play sports and get that scholarship in the end? Do you say no because she’s a minor and requires your consent? Do you not respect her wishes/dreams/passions and say no even though she wants to have the abortion? What do you do when it affects you and your family. Think about this one. What if it was YOUR daughter that got pregnant. What would you do then? Or are their exceptions to the rule when it finally affects you personally?
Nate, you and I are on the same side of the debate in that we are both pro-choice, so perhaps you will listen to my critique of your arguments. The posters who are saying that your arguments are filled with holes and do not make logical sense are absolutely correct. If you start with the assumption (as the pro-lifers do and which I reject) that a fetus is a human being, and that murdering human beings is wrong (a premise we all agree on), it does not follow that the death penalty and war are also wrong. All three acts involve killing, but each under different circumstances. The circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether that killing is murder (or a lesser crime like manslaughter) or whether the killing is justifiable or excusable. Killing in self defense is not murder. Killing someone in a car accident (assuming no recklessness or gross negligence) is not a crime or murder. Killing in times of war is not murder (although killing prisoners of war or intentionally targeting civilians is considered murder even in times of war). Executing a criminal who has been convicted of a capital crime is not murder. On the other hand, a mother who decides she does not want to continue to care for a 6 month old baby and who kills it is committing murder. The pro-lifers equate the 6 month old baby in my example with the 6 week old fetus in terms of being a human being. If you accept this premise as correct, then their argument is absolutely correct as well and any appeal to war or the death penalty is nothing but an illogical argument. The central issue in this debate is whether the major premise of their argument (a fetus is a human being) is correct, not whether the minor premise of their argument (murdering a human being is wrong) is correct. Everyone agrees with the minor premise (including you). But the conclusion (abortion is wrong) is based on the application of the minor premise to the major premise. The real debate should rightly be focused on the whether the major premise is accurate. As I have said, I do not think that the major premise can be proven true or false based on science. The debate becomes one of morality and belief. I do not believe a fetus is a human being until the viability. Pro-lifers believe that it becomes a human being at the moment of conception. Just so you don’t feel bad, many (but not all) pro-lifers also use incorrect or inappropriate logical reasoning in some of the positions that they take. For instance, some pro-lifers believe that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape or incest. This is an illogical position to take since the fetus is a human being who did not commit a crime (although it was the product of a crime) and would be punished with death for the bad acts of its father (this assumes another minor premise that the crimes of the parent are not transfered to the child, which I think we can all agree on). I really think that every person should take a course or read a book on rhetoric and basic logic. It might help cut through all of the bad and often emotive arguments.
After killing the boyfriend, I tell her she has made a choice and with that choice come consequences. She can keep the kid and do what she can to slowly build a better life for herself. I would support her, but she made her bed and she has to lie in it. If she chose adoption, I would support her. The consequences of that would be not seeing her baby grow up. If she chose to kill the baby, I would disown her. I’ve known 6 different women in my life who had abortions were they were young, and they all were completely scarred emotionally. To allow a 13 or 14 or 16 year old to decide to kill her baby is mindboggling to me. Anyway, when my wife (girlfriend at the time) got pregnant during my first year of law shool, I chose to give up a full scholarship and take care of my family. I’ve been in the situation, so I’m not just talking hypothetically. I’ll be back in law school soon, but I could never get back my son.
Matt, yes, that is what I mean! You wrote what I could not say. And you are correct in that sometimes both sides use the wrong arguments to state their opinions. But I understand and agree with your reasoning.
Doogie, I respect your view and reasoning on the matter should something like that happen to you. My reason for using a scenario like that is because I think many people are Pro-Life until something happens to them personally. This is not the case in all situations, but in some. And you know that your choice number three (scenario of daughter aborting baby and you disowning her) is something that could and does happen. But ultimately that is her choice. And that’s why I am pro-choice; because it is the mother’s decision even if it causes her being disowned by family and friends.
So, Nate, what is it my choice to go out and kill somebody? Maybe just rob them? The argument must ultimately come down to whether or not you believe a fetus is a life before it’s viable outside the womb. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that a first trimester fetus is any less alive than a third trimester fetus. If anybody would like to take a stab at it, go ahead.
Indeed – it was actually funny that we both posted something on essentially the same point at the same time (yours wasn’t up yet when I posted). It does no good whatsoever to talk in circles around the main point of disagreement. One has to unpack all the typical arguments and get to the main issue if one really wants to get to an understanding, or even an agreement to disagree. And, as you said, science isn’t going to solve this – people are going to have to realize this and start discussing the main disagreement: when does a group of cells become a human? (As to the sub issues, such as who should regulate and whether Roe v. Wade is good (it’s atrocious Constitutional reasoning, but people are in love with the result), those can be sorted out afterward).
Here’s a question to take this little abortion debate on a different tack: What do you all think of the idea that the father should have rights w/r/t making the decision to abort the fetus? His rights and future life are very much affected by the decision, and the child is half his genetic material, even if it does grow inside the mother.
My position is that he should have rights in the decision, precisely because of the effect on him. Without giving him a say, there is an interesting double standard going on that affects at least the emotive force behind the pro-choice position, because you’re saying that the father chooses to become a parent at the point of conception, but the mother does not, and can contemplate and change that decision (unilaterally) until the point the fetus becomes a human.
But don’t think of the question only in terms of pro-choice or pro-life, because if the father has rights in the decision, theoretically those rights need not be limited simply to the ability to stop an abortion. Think of Nate’s example, except change the gender of the child in question to male, and then think of all the consequences on his life.
Just an interesting point to discuss.
Nate - If it was my daughter I would counsel her to bear the baby, and to give it up for adoption - or if she felt she was strong enough emotionally to let us raise the baby (with the proviso that she would get no more say in raising the baby than if she were the big sister).
I say this being very aware that carrying the baby to full-term will be a life-changing decision. Because she will be emotionally attached to the baby by the time she delivers and no matter what choice she makes at that point will be a wrenchingly painful decision. She will have to give up something (either the baby or the future she was planning on) no matter what she decides. But I also believe that she’d be worse off emotionally if she aborted it. I’m a firm believer in karma - and I can’t imagine any worse negative karma (in either this life or the next) than extinguishing a life that you are responsible for creating.
Also FYI - This isn’t a completely hypothetical situation, except I’m the father of the boyfriend (and they were 18, not 16). But it was just as life-changing for him as it is for his (now) wife. And for me too (as they are now living with us).
OK, but don’t you think the idea of a “legal war” is somewhat oxymoronic. grin Actually,you could have different war federations, but ATM the US would be the only competitor in the Super-Heavy division
Sure, the US wouldn’t go around smiting people it disagreed with [well I hope not], but what would make their self-governing actions legitimate with respect to others. For all the noises the US makes about being aggrieved and wanting to set aside international law they have to recognise it if they want the rest of the world to listen to them.
BB wrote: “Indeed – it was actually funny that we both posted something on essentially the same point at the same time (yours wasn’t up yet when I posted).”
Well, great minds think alike – of course my mother says that so too do demented ones. 
BB: “It does no good whatsoever to talk in circles around the main point of disagreement. One has to unpack all the typical arguments and get to the main issue if one really wants to get to an understanding, or even an agreement to disagree.”
Agreed, completely. By the way, I too am an attorney. Civil litigation on the Left Coast out here in Los Angeles. Although we lawyers take a lot of abuse in popular culture, the one thing we certainly can add to a debate is a dose of logical reasoning and defining of the issues. Moreover, we are quite adept at spotting strawman arguments and other illogical tactics.
BB: “And, as you said, science isn’t going to solve this – people are going to have to realize this and start discussing the main disagreement: when does a group of cells become a human?”
And thus we again get to the crux of the issue. As you said above, once this question is answered, you know where you stand on abortion. Science will not answer this question for you (although it may aid it), only your personal belief system and sense of morality will.
“As to the sub issues, such as who should regulate and whether Roe v. Wade is good (it’s atrocious Constitutional reasoning, but people are in love with the result), those can be sorted out afterward.”
It has been about 6 years since I took Con Law II in law school (and that was the last time I read Roe v. Wade). As I recall, the reasoning was based on a balancing of the right of privacy versus the state’s societal interests in protecting the fetus. I do not recall whether the question was answered as to whether a fetus is human being. As far as the reasoning being poor, that may well be the case (as I said, its been a long time since I read the decision), but it wouldn’t be the first time that the Supreme Court reached what I think was the correct result despite using poor Constitutional reasoning. A prime example of this is Brown v. The Board of Education which ended “separate but equal” treatment of blacks in this country. It was the correct result, but bad Constitutional reasoning (e.g., allowing evidence to be considered which was not part of the record).
BostonBarrister - That’s a very good question and a topic I’ve discussed before. Another aspect of the double standard is the legal obligation to pay child support. The father has no rights to the baby while it is in utero but must pay child support when it is born. Also, the rhetorical arguement of refering to a embryo as a “woman’s body” is down right silly.