Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

[Diogenes]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.

[RightReason]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #60]

There is ideology on both sides when it comes to morality, value, and in answering questions like when sentience or consciousness (its basic form, at least) starts, etc. Sure, we can agree that a fetus is a human but I also acknowledge that there is a difference between a human that's in the form of a cluster of cells vs. one that is already born. The latter obviously has more impact on life and has much more responsibility.

Why? Like you said, if we recognize it for what it is – a human life, how can you say it has less value than a human outside of the womb, just because it isn’t yet out of the womb? That is suggesting the value of a human being is based on what he/she can do or “bring to the table” so to speak and not simply inherent in being a human being. It is precisely the kind of thinking that says grandpa is of less value than young strapping Johnny because he’s past his prime. It’s the same kind of mindset that says paraplegic Joe has less value than the football player Joe. That smarter people have greater value than someone with a lower IQ.

Again, we all started out as fetuses. We all were little children who had to be fed and bathed by our parents.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that your position (i.e life has value as conception) is wrong, but rather I see it as unproven when it comes to assigning value.

I challenge you on that. I challenge you to really think about what it is you’re saying. A human being doesn’t just have value/worth because some other human being grants him such. A human being – all human beings – should have value/worth simply for being human. And I challenge you to consider the logic in position. You are suggesting that little fetus Susie has value/worth if her parents want her, but if her parents do not want her, then she has no value/worth worthy of protection and can be killed. You must see the illogic of such a position. Susie’s worth is not contingent on someone else.

Again, we’ve tried this throughout history, where one group of people try to say another class of people aren’t deserving or worthy of the same rights as other humans. It’s always eventually found to be the barbaric prejudiced ignorant unscientific position.

I'd be against it if it can be shown that the fetus has any signs of awareness.

So, you would be cool with killing a 25 year old in a coma? Or anyone who seems to be currently ‘unaware’?

RightReason wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:17 amWomen have access to contraception in this country. In fact, it is often free or fairly inexpensive. Women also have access to educate themselves, as do men regarding women’s bodies. A sexually active couple should be able to communicate with each other. It isn’t rocket science to figure out when you are ovulating. It might require 2-3 days of abstinence a month. If not having a baby right now is that important for a couple, I would think abstaining on a day you are ovulating is not that big of a hardship.
Agreed!

I’m so glad to hear this. I am so surprised how the world can chastise people for not recycling, fine them for littering, demand that corporations follow regulations and take responsibility for this planet we live on, but for some reason can’t expect people to recognize how their sexual behavior could possibly create a human life. We wouldn’t hesitate to say someone is being selfish or wasteful to not recycle, but could never say engaging in unprotected sex, knowing that pregnancy is a consequence, is selfish and irresponsible if they do not want, nor would not be able to take care of a child right now.

[Clownboat]

I will not get sucked in to racist arguments.

I compared your comment regarding the unborn equivalent to racism,

There is only one race of humans. I will not get sucked in to racist arguments.

No – with the exact same value/worth/human dignity. A human life is a human life.

I do not place the same value on a fetus that has about a 50% chance to survive pregnancy as I do on an actualized human. No mother would choose the potential life of their fetus over the life of their actual child. Therefore, a human life is a human life, but the value is not the same which is my argument.

Do you often value human beings based on their stage of development?

When discussing abortion, politics or my favorite sports team for example, yes.

So, is grandpa worth less than junior? Is mommy’s newborn worth less than Tommy Toddler? Is the 14 year old with Downs Syndrome worth less than the 15 year old without since mentally the person with Downs is at the level of a 5 year old?

Nope. Try to follow along as these are just distractions.
A fetus, that has about a 50% chance of surviving has less value then grandpa, junior or the toddler. Grandpa, junior and the toddler have the same value.

See what happens when we put a person’s worldview to the logical test? The illogic and inconsistencies become quite clear.

Pride comes before a fall. Which inconsistencies are you referring to?

You are outside a burning building. From outside you see a false uterus with a label showing that there are 5 fertilized human embryos in it. You also notice a 1 year old child in a corner crying. You have time to save one. Which one do you save?

But to respond to your little hypothetical . . . it reveals human nature, not what is right/good/moral.

Nice dodge. I asked who you would save, not what is right/good/moral.
You, like everyone else would save the 1 year old child.

Does this mean the 10 year old is more valuable than the 90? No.

Correct, but this was addressed already.

We all would recognize both the 90 year old and the 10 year old have equal human worth/value.

You're starting to get it, though I would imagine more than a few 90 year olds may not agree with us.

If there were two children in a burning building, I would probably save my own first. Does this mean I think someone else’s kid is not as valuable?

Again, just another dodge to avoid the fact that a 1 year old has more value than a fetus that has a 50% chance to abort naturally.

No. Just because someone might choose the one year old crying in the corner, doesn’t mean the embryos have less value.

That is exactly what is being shown.
Face it, miscarriages are a part of nature with about 50% of pregnancies aborting naturally. If my wife and I lost a wanted fetus, it would be a tragedy. If we lost our 1 year old, it doesn't even compare as the value is different.

The truth is abortion is wrong.

I don't like abortions, but the truth is, not allowing a women to choose what to do with her own body is even more wrong.

It’s bad for women, for children, and for society.

Here is where you lose me even though I don't like abortions. An aborted fetus is an unwanted fetus by definition. How many unwanted babies is the correct amount to have and how will that be good for society?

It is a horrific oppressive practice and the greatest violation of human rights we face today.

Trying to slay us with irony? You argue to oppress women here. You would seek to take away their choice as to not attempt to carry an unwanted fetus to term. Talk about a violation of human rights!

[Clownboat]

I’m so glad to hear this. I am so surprised how the world can chastise people for not recycling, fine them for littering, demand that corporations follow regulations and take responsibility for this planet we live on, but for some reason can’t expect people to recognize how their sexual behavior could possibly create a human life. We wouldn’t hesitate to say someone is being selfish or wasteful to not recycle, but could never say engaging in unprotected sex, knowing that pregnancy is a consequence, is selfish and irresponsible if they do not want, nor would not be able to take care of a child right now.

Your response fails to address that we are biological creatures that reproduce via sexual reproduction. This inherent fact is unfortunately ignored by many of our hormone driven teenagers. Surely you know this, yet pretend that teens will not be teens. I will not just ignore this reality even though I don't like abortions.

Then there is this reality that seemingly is also ignored:
Banning abortion does not stop the practice; it merely makes it more dangerous. We need to understand that women, young or middle aged, within marriage or without who do not want a child may go to almost any lengths to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In the absence of legal, safe procedures, such sophisticated surgical instruments as wire coat hangers, knitting needles, bleach and turpentine will be deployed instead. How many more poisonings, punctured guts and burst wombs are required before we recognise that prohibition will not trounce women’s need to own their own lives?

Again, I don't like abortions, but do desire that women can choose what to do with their own bodies and realize that I should have no say over what women decide to do with their own bodies.

I'm anti abortion, but pro choice.
You are anti abortion and anti choice. It is the anti choice that I take issue with (as well as the value difference) and seek justification for why you should have a say in the matter. You not liking abortions, like myself is not a good reason and the value between a wanted 1 year old and an unwanted fetus is not the same.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #62]

Clownboat wrote:I will not get sucked in to racist arguments.
I compared your comment regarding the unborn equivalent to racism,
There is only one race of humans. I will not get sucked in to racist arguments.

Exactly! The unborn are part of the human race. Let us not deny this scientific fact and instead exercise some kind of barbaric practice of ‘might makes right’ over their lives.

No – with the exact same value/worth/human dignity. A human life is a human life.

I do not place the same value on a fetus that has about a 50% chance to survive pregnancy as I do on an actualized human.

That doesn’t even make sense. If you are already born, then you are not considered a fetus, but you couldn’t have been born if you weren’t originally labeled a fetus.


We all have a 0% chance of surviving a pregnancy if we are killed due to an abortion procedure.


Also, many people do not even know that Roe made it possible for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason, at any point during the pregnancy. Thanks to modern science, a fetus as young as 21 weeks old has survived outside the womb. And some premature fetus’ weigh only 7.5 ounces and have survived.

No mother would choose the potential life of their fetus over the life of their actual child.

The fetus already has life. There is nothing potential about it. You could say all of us have potential lives, as any of us could die for a number of reasons at any time.


And you are wrong, there have been some women who have chosen to take the life of their already born child. And there are some women who have chosen to abort their already existing unborn child. When these things happen, it is always tragic. Mostly because they do so feeling like they have no choice. They do so, because they think in some warped way, this will be better or solve something they are currently seeing as “a problem”. They often do so under some perceived pressure.

Therefore, a human life is a human life, but the value is not the same which is my argument.

Right. But it is a weak argument. Again, it is no different from attempting to claim the life of a Native American is of less value than the life of a white man. It is the same as attempting to say African Americans are inferior to Caucasians. It is the same as saying a person with a disability or a person in a coma does not have the same value as a person without a disability or as a healthy person.

Do you often value human beings based on their stage of development?
When discussing abortion, politics or my favorite sports team for example, yes.

I know you are trying to be funny, but the irony must evade you. Clearly, you do not actually believe the life of a rookie in the minor leagues is of less value than a professional in the majors.

So, is grandpa worth less than junior? Is mommy’s newborn worth less than Tommy Toddler? Is the 14 year old with Downs Syndrome worth less than the 15 year old without since mentally the person with Downs is at the level of a 5 year old?

Nope. Try to follow along as these are just distractions.
A fetus, that has about a 50% chance of surviving has less value then grandpa, junior or the toddler. Grandpa, junior and the toddler have the same value.

You keep saying that, but why should I believe you? You have already demonstrated that a human’s worth/value should be based on their age, stage of development, physical location, and possibly their health condition. Again, it’s the ‘ole “might makes right”/”survival of the fittest” at play.


Grandpa, junior, and toddler would have less than 50% of surviving if someone decided to deny them food and water. Or if someone decided to stab then in the back of the neck. Or if someone declared them subhuman.


To declare the unborn less valuable because they are more vulnerable makes absolutely no sense. It would be similar to declaring someone with a terminal illness less valuable, since they have a 50% chance they won’t wake up tomorrow.

You are outside a burning building. From outside you see a false uterus with a label showing that there are 5 fertilized human embryos in it. You also notice a 1 year old child in a corner crying. You have time to save one. Which one do you save?
But to respond to your little hypothetical . . . it reveals human nature, not what is right/good/moral.
Nice dodge. I asked who you would save, not what is right/good/moral.
You, like everyone else would save the 1 year old child.

Actually, that’s not the full context of what I said. Also, why shouldn’t it matter what is right/good/moral? Why would we take what is right out of the equation? Doing what is right and good is part of what it means to be human. It affects our behaviors on a daily basis.

No. Just because someone might choose the one year old crying in the corner, doesn’t mean the embryos have less value.


That is exactly what is being shown.

No. It does not. With your logic, if a guy was having an affair and could only save one of his mistresses in a burning building . . . you would say the one he ends up saving must have had more value than the other one, by default. However, any sane/reasonable person – and even the man himself – knows both of them have the same value and dignity in simply being human. Their value/worth/dignity is NOT contingent on the man’s choice.

The truth is abortion is wrong.

I don't like abortions, but the truth is, not allowing a women to choose what to do with her own body is even more wrong.

Her bodily rights end, where another human body’s rights begin. The fetus has his/her own unique set of DNA separate from the mother’s. That’s science.

An aborted fetus is an unwanted fetus by definition.

No. Just because someone in this world would want you dead, does not make you unwanted. They most likely don’t want themselves. It says much more about them, then it does about you, especially when they don’t even know you yet.

How many unwanted babies is the correct amount to have and how will that be good for society?

How many dead babies is good for society? What’s your abortion goal? How many destroyed relationships? Statistics show 90% of couples that end up having an abortion end up breaking up. How much post traumatic abortion syndrome is the correct amount? Abortion regret is real. It messes with people big time. It can be linked to depression and substance abuse down the road. So, how much of that is good for society? How much devaluing of life is the correct amount? What does it say when we live in a society where mother’s can kill their unborn? How does that affect how we see one another? How we value life in general? How much oppression of women is the correct amount? Women report they felt pressured to have an abortion and it was not something they really wanted. How much sexism is good for society? More girl babies are aborted than boy babies. How much racism? More black babies are aborted than white. In fact, in some cities more black babies are aborted than are born. How much viewing human life as a commodity is correct? Abortion is big business. How much abuse of women being overlooked is correct? Planned Parenthood has been found guilty of not reporting rape and sexual abuse. They cover and enable these a**holes. How much keeping women down will we endure? This false narrative that keeping your baby will mean you can’t get an education or a promotion or a life!




^ Gee, we won’t give you family leave or better benefits, but here’s $4000 so you can go get an abortion and get back to work sooner. Yikes!

It is a horrific oppressive practice and the greatest violation of human rights we face today.
Trying to slay us with irony? You argue to oppress women here. You would seek to take away their choice as to not attempt to carry an unwanted fetus to term. Talk about a violation of human rights!

Please see my previous response. It appears you may be unaware of what it is you are arguing. It is the pro aborts who keep ramming it down a woman’s throat that she ought to get an abortion. That she can’t handle a child. That she does not want to be a burden on society. That if she goes this route, she will be on her own. It is the husbands and boyfriends shouting, “get rid of it, or I’ll leave!” Guess what? They leave anyway. It is the parents shouting, “What about your schooling? Don’t expect help from us.” It is society telling a woman to do “the responsible thing”. Here sweetie, just take this little pill. You’ll thank us in the morning. Some freedom!

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #63]

RightReason wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:58 pmI’m so glad to hear this. I am so surprised how the world can chastise people for not recycling, fine them for littering, demand that corporations follow regulations and take responsibility for this planet we live on, but for some reason can’t expect people to recognize how their sexual behavior could possibly create a human life. We wouldn’t hesitate to say someone is being selfish or wasteful to not recycle, but could never say engaging in unprotected sex, knowing that pregnancy is a consequence, is selfish and irresponsible if they do not want, nor would not be able to take care of a child right now.
Your response fails to address that we are biological creatures that reproduce via sexual reproduction. This inherent fact is unfortunately ignored by many of our hormone driven teenagers. Surely you know this, yet pretend that teens will not be teens. I will not just ignore this reality even though I don't like abortions.

Your response fails to recognize what distinguishes human beings from other animals. We have the ability to reason. We have control of our passions. We are not walking time bombs. We can exercise discipline and will power. We have the ability, intelligence, and wherewithal to forego instant gratification for long term peace/fulfillment. Yes, this can be more difficult for the young. But hardly impossible. In fact, it is the young who are often more idealistic and longing to believe in and dedicate themselves to something bigger than themselves. They are able to commit themselves to a great cause or something they see as important.

The tired accusation, “well boys will be boys”, or “kids’ gonna do what kids’ gonna do” sells our youth short in both what they are capable of and what they understand.

Then there is this reality that seemingly is also ignored:
Banning abortion does not stop the practice; it merely makes it more dangerous.

That’s a bit tired too. Banning abortion does stop the practice. It may help take the pressure off these women that want to keep their babies, but are not getting the support they need. It may help women realize abortion is not the solution they’ve been told it is. It reminds us all of the wrongness of abortion and this can eventually change hearts and minds in valuing and respecting one another a little bit more.

Abortions occurred prior to Roe and they will occur after Roe, but the back alley coat hanger abortion argument was exaggerated then and would probably be unheard of now. Abortion pills now exist and believe me, Americans know how to get their pills – no coat hangers necessary. The truth is, abortions were already increasing in danger with the increase use of the abortion pill prior to the overturning of Roe, but this didn’t seem to bother people prior to the overturning of Roe too much. Media crickets about that until now. Now all of sudden all these people are concerned about the safety of women – uh huh!

We need to understand that women, young or middle aged, within marriage or without who do not want a child may go to almost any lengths to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Correct – when they have been made to feel like they should. When they don’t receive the support they need. When we live in a patriarchal society that wants to punish women for being women. When a woman’s fertility is seen as some kind of curse.

In the absence of legal, safe procedures, such sophisticated surgical instruments as wire coat hangers, knitting needles, bleach and turpentine will be deployed instead. How many more poisonings, punctured guts and burst wombs are required before we recognise that prohibition will not trounce women’s need to own their own lives?

Unfounded hyperbole. See my previous comments.

By the way, abortion has never been safe – a baby always dies.

Also, no one cares about the women’s safety. If they did they would not support Planned Parenthood when it pushes to have non doctors perform abortions, when it doesn’t meet the health code standards at their facilities, when the parents of minors aren’t consulted when a young girl is about to have an abortion procedure. This same young girl cannot be given Tylenol at her school without parental permission, but she can have an abortion. When Planned Parenthood fights to prevent women from viewing ultra sound machines at their clinics. What about providing women with all the information? What about allowing them to make informed decisions?

I'm anti abortion, but pro choice.
You are anti abortion and anti choice.

You are pro abortion and “pro choice” for the mother, but not pro choice for the unborn. And again, it isn’t quite the same to say you are pro choice, when even the women themselves say they felt like they had no choice. It’s not much of choice to make a woman feel they need an abortion.

It is the anti choice that I take issue with

Then you should take another look at your position. Like I said, with the legalization of abortion, women are made to feel like they have no choice.

My position allows the women to really be free. She doesn’t have to choose between her baby and a career. She doesn’t have to choose between her baby and going to school. She doesn’t have to choose between her baby and food on the table. Pro life programs help her realize she’s got this and others are here to help, because she and her baby are worth it.

[Clownboat]

Right. But it is a weak argument. Again, it is no different from attempting to claim the life of a Native American is of less value than the life of a white man. It is the same as attempting to say African Americans are inferior to Caucasians. It is the same as saying a person with a disability or a person in a coma does not have the same value as a person without a disability or as a healthy person.

Are you sure it is weak? Let's test that and let the readers decide shall we?
Burning building, you can save a white man or a Native American man. Who do you save? Not an easy answer is it?
Same building, but fetus and 1 year old. We all would save the 1 year old and arriving at that conclusion was easy because there is a value difference. White man and Native American, no value difference.

Doesn't seem weak to me and I'm sure the readers understand why.

Nope. Try to follow along as these are just distractions.
A fetus, that has about a 50% chance of surviving has less value then grandpa, junior or the toddler. Grandpa, junior and the toddler have the same value.

You keep saying that, but why should I believe you?

You asked me a question. I answered it. I cannot make you believe me.

You have already demonstrated that a human’s worth/value should be based on their age, stage of development, physical location, and possibly their health condition. Again, it’s the ‘ole “might makes right”/”survival of the fittest” at play.

I have compared the unborn that has roughly a 50% chance to survive to the actualized human baby. The rest of what you say is lies.

Grandpa, junior, and toddler would have less than 50% of surviving if someone decided to deny them food and water. Or if someone decided to stab then in the back of the neck. Or if someone declared them subhuman.

More emotional distractions in order for you to not address the value difference between the unborn and the born.
Starve a grandpa! Stab someone in the neck! Do you not have any valid rebuttals to the clear value difference shown between a zygote (for example) and a 1 year old?

To declare the unborn less valuable because they are more vulnerable makes absolutely no sense.

They do have less value and you are the one that brought up vulnerability.

If I'm wrong, just declare that you would save the 5 blastocysts from the fire instead of the 1 year old and defend why you would do so. We can then determine if your reasoning justifies your decision.

It would be similar to declaring someone with a terminal illness less valuable, since they have a 50% chance they won’t wake up tomorrow.

I suppose you could make this argument, but you should start a new thread. This one is not about starving our grandparents, stabbing people in the neck, racism or declaring terminally ill people as less valuable.

No. Just because someone might choose the one year old crying in the corner, doesn’t mean the embryos have less value.

That is exactly what is being shown.

No. It does not. With your logic, if a guy was having an affair and could only save one of his mistresses in a burning building . . . you would say the one he ends up saving must have had more value than the other one, by default. However, any sane/reasonable person – and even the man himself – knows both of them have the same value and dignity in simply being human. Their value/worth/dignity is NOT contingent on the man’s choice.

Thanks for making me laugh out loud! You just cannot answer the question honestly can you? Very telling that you need to make it about starving grandpa, stabbings or a man having an afair. What ever it takes to not address the point, huh?

We all would save the 1 year old in the scenario I brought up. I submit that we would do so because there is a value difference. If there wasn't, the decision would be hard like trying to decide to save a white man over an native American.

I don't like abortions, but the truth is, not allowing a women to choose what to do with her own body is even more wrong.

Her bodily rights end, where another human body’s rights begin.

Not when the mothers value is greater than the value of the unwanted thing being removed.

The fetus has his/her own unique set of DNA separate from the mother’s. That’s science.

No one said otherwise. Please stay on topic as these distractions just make our posts get longer and longer.

An aborted fetus is an unwanted fetus by definition.

No. Just because someone in this world would want you dead, does not make you unwanted.

You just cannot address the actual questions can you? Again, very telling IMO.
When a mother decides to abort their fetus, it cleary is not something that is wanted (discounting abortions to save a mothers life of course).

They most likely don’t want themselves.

They are removing a potential human life, and you think 'most likely' they don't want it?

It says much more about them, then it does about you, especially when they don’t even know you yet.

Back we come to examples as to why the value is different. Thank you. A mother would 'know' their 1 year old. Please compare that bond with the one you think would be there for a zygote so we can see if they are equal.

How many unwanted babies is the correct amount to have and how will that be good for society?

How many dead babies is good for society? What’s your abortion goal? How many destroyed relationships?

Once again, you illustrate for us all your inability stay on point and answer direct questions. Your inability makes my point.
To answer your questions that are nothing more than dodges: 0, 0 and 0.

Statistics show 90% of couples that end up having an abortion end up breaking up.

Ok.

How much post traumatic abortion syndrome is the correct amount?

Zero would be ideal.

Abortion regret is real.

Yup.

It messes with people big time.

Not when it benefits them or when there is no regret. Your brush is too broad and only reflects one end of the spectrum.

It can be linked to depression and substance abuse down the road. So, how much of that is good for society?

Your brush is too broad and only reflects one end of the spectrum. Being forced to attempt to carry a fetus that you don't want to term can have the same effects you cry about here. Yet, you don't seem to consider those.

How much devaluing of life is the correct amount?

Zero. Noting that there is a value difference is something else though.

What does it say when we live in a society where mother’s can kill their unborn?

It says that we allow women to chose to do what they think is best for them. Please stay away from my daughters.

How does that affect how we see one another? How we value life in general? How much oppression of women is the correct amount?

Oh my god the irony! How can you not see it!

Women report they felt pressured to have an abortion and it was not something they really wanted.

Why don't you starve, or stab in the neck the ones that didn't feel pressure to have an abortion.
Again, you are only looking at this from one point of view and seem to ignore the other point of view.

How much sexism is good for society?

Zero. I'm starting to lose patience with you and these silly and off point questions.

It is the pro aborts who keep ramming it down a woman’s throat that she ought to get an abortion.

I don't know a single person that is pro abortion. I know many that are pro choice, meaning it should be up to the mother to determine what is best for her body, life and what is done with the fetus she is carrying.
You seem to think there are people that desire abortions. The more the merrier! This is not the reality I live in and it would be truly disgusting if people desired to abort a fetus, but you seem to be losing touch with the debate at this point anyway.

That she can’t handle a child. That she does not want to be a burden on society. That if she goes this route, she will be on her own. It is the husbands and boyfriends shouting, “get rid of it, or I’ll leave!” Guess what? They leave anyway. It is the parents shouting, “What about your schooling? Don’t expect help from us.” It is society telling a woman to do “the responsible thing”. Here sweetie, just take this little pill. You’ll thank us in the morning. Some freedom!

Derp. Forcing them to carry a fetus they don't want is to deprive them of freedom.
You can wine all you want about how humans influence other humans in all walks of life, but I don't see the point in doing so here in this debate.

[Clownboat]

Your response fails to address that we are biological creatures that reproduce via sexual reproduction. This inherent fact is unfortunately ignored by many of our hormone driven teenagers. Surely you know this, yet pretend that teens will not be teens. I will not just ignore this reality even though I don't like abortions.

Your response fails to recognize what distinguishes human beings from other animals. We have the ability to reason. We have control of our passions. We are not walking time bombs. We can exercise discipline and will power. We have the ability, intelligence, and wherewithal to forego instant gratification for long term peace/fulfillment. Yes, this can be more difficult for the young. But hardly impossible. In fact, it is the young who are often more idealistic and longing to believe in and dedicate themselves to something bigger than themselves. They are able to commit themselves to a great cause or something they see as important.

You completely failed to address my point that we ARE biological creatures that reproduce via sexual reproduction.
I acknowledge that humans have differences compared to other animals.
I acknowledge that we have the ability to reason, to attempt to control our passions, that we are not walking time bombs and have varying degrees of discipline and will power.
None of what you said addresses the fact that our young will continue to have sex before marriage.

The tired accusation, “well boys will be boys”, or “kids’ gonna do what kids’ gonna do” sells our youth short in both what they are capable of and what they understand.

Off topic. Please start a thread if this is worth discussing.

That’s a bit tired too. Banning abortion does stop the practice.

It doesn't, see prohibition. Learn your history or you are doomed to repeat it.

We need to understand that women, young or middle aged, within marriage or without who do not want a child may go to almost any lengths to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Correct – when they have been made to feel like they should.

So your solution is to take away their freedom!?!

When they don’t receive the support they need.

Why seek to increase the amount of mothers that would be put into such a scenario? If a women determines that she does not have the needed support to attempt to carry a fetus to term, who are you to decide otherwise for them? What kind of narcisism is this? Where do you (both generic you and you, you) enter the equation?

When we live in a patriarchal society that wants to punish women for being women.

What?!!!!

When a woman’s fertility is seen as some kind of curse.

Oh my! What are you on about now?
The curse of woman came about because Eve ate from a tree that she shouldn't have it that story is to be believed. You are all over the board it seems.

By the way, abortion has never been safe – a baby always dies.

Derp. One reason I despise abortions, but we should try to keep our emotions out of it.

Also, no one cares about the women’s safety.

What an empty, meaningless, blanket, unevidence statement. Do you not care about a womens safety? I have to ask, because you don't seem to care about their freedoms when it comes to having a choice to abort. I for one care about peoples safety in general, rendering your statement false.

If they did they would not support Planned Parenthood when it pushes to have non doctors perform abortions, when it doesn’t meet the health code standards at their facilities, when the parents of minors aren’t consulted when a young girl is about to have an abortion procedure. This same young girl cannot be given Tylenol at her school without parental permission, but she can have an abortion. When Planned Parenthood fights to prevent women from viewing ultra sound machines at their clinics. What about providing women with all the information? What about allowing them to make informed decisions?

If you think I wish to restrict any of this, you are mistaken.
You and I are discussing the value difference between something we abort and a 1 year old.

I'm anti abortion, but pro choice.
You are anti abortion and anti choice.

You are pro abortion and “pro choice” for the mother, but not pro choice for the unborn.

False as I would seek for there to be zero abortions. I would gladly allow the fetus to choose, but they can't can they? You are just wrong once again.

And again, it isn’t quite the same to say you are pro choice, when even the women themselves say they felt like they had no choice. It’s not much of choice to make a woman feel they need an abortion.

The solution is surley not to deprive women of having a choice.
A car salesman will pressure you to purchase a car. Having the government say that women cannot buy cars would be much worse then what the car salesmans does. How do you fail to see this?

It is the anti choice that I take issue with

Then you should take another look at your position.

Bam! Done! It is still your anti choice stance that I take issue with.

My position allows the women to really be free.

Great! Another claim we can test!
Does your position allow a women to be free to carry a fetus to term or to decide not to attempt to carry a fetus to term?
Can't wait to see this dodge.

Pro life programs help her realize she’s got this and others are here to help, because she and her baby are worth it.

Do you take issue with pro life programs? I don't.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #67]

None of what you said addresses the fact that our young will continue to have sex before marriage.

What needs to be addressed about that? Abortion is hardly just by young people who get carried away. And even because that can happen, how would that mean they shouldn’t be responsible for their actions/behavior? Again, as if they are animals with no intelligence, reason, or control? And what does any of that have to do with trying to justify the killing of an innocent human life? It doesn’t.

The tired accusation, “well boys will be boys”, or “kids’ gonna do what kids’ gonna do” sells our youth short in both what they are capable of and what they understand.

Off topic. Please start a thread if this is worth discussing.

On topic. You are the one trying to make the argument that since it is difficult for young people to control their passions, abortion ought to be legal. Uhhh . . . NO. THAT is a non sequitur.

That’s a bit tired too. Banning abortion does stop the practice.

It doesn't, see prohibition. Learn your history or you are doomed to repeat it.

Hmmm . . . no need to make murder illegal, because people still commit murder, even though it is illegal. Yeah, that makes sense. We shouldn’t try to ban murder. Learn your logic.

We need to understand that women, young or middle aged, within marriage or without who do not want a child may go to almost any lengths to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Correct – when they have been made to feel like they should.
So your solution is to take away their freedom!?!

Just telling someone they have freedom, doesn’t make it so. Sounds like you don’t really understand what actual freedom looks like. It’s like those touting “free love” in the 60’s actually thinking being promiscuous and engaging in casual sex equals freedom. When in reality it typically equals STD’s, unplanned pregnancy, and broken hearts.


Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. -JPII


To argue that a woman should have the right to be a prostitute if she chooses, is to completely miss the definition of freedom. In choosing prostitution she could never be free. Similarly, choosing abortion does not make a woman free.

By the way, abortion has never been safe – a baby always dies.
Derp. One reason I despise abortions, but we should try to keep our emotions out of it.

Derp. Yeah, wouldn’t want to acknowledge the facts about what abortion actually is/does. Best to refer to the killing of a baby as “reproductive health care”. Emotions in check, indeed.

If they did they would not support Planned Parenthood when it pushes to have non doctors perform abortions, when it doesn’t meet the health code standards at their facilities, when the parents of minors aren’t consulted when a young girl is about to have an abortion procedure. This same young girl cannot be given Tylenol at her school without parental permission, but she can have an abortion. When Planned Parenthood fights to prevent women from viewing ultra sound machines at their clinics. What about providing women with all the information? What about allowing them to make informed decisions?
If you think I wish to restrict any of this, you are mistaken.

Well, then you really shouldn’t be supporting the world’s largest abortion providers, because they have supported each and every one of the things I just listed.

You and I are discussing the value difference between something we abort and a 1 year old.

Careful now. Value can be based on opinion/emotions. How about we stick to the science/facts. Both a baby outside the womb and a baby inside the womb are human lives. They have the same value/worth/dignity intrinsic and inalienable to being human. Let’s not let our emotions tell us because we can hear the 1 year old giggle and laugh, the unborn child is a clump of cells/parasite in comparison. We’re all a clump of cells. Do try to keep your emotions in check.

I would seek for there to be zero abortions. I would gladly allow the fetus to choose, but they can't can they? You are just wrong once again.

How about we give the fetus a few years to decide? That seems like a reasonable amount of time when we are talking about a life or death decision. Oh, and let’s do whatever we want to anyone who can’t speak, since we can’t possibly know whether they want to live or die. Sounds reasonable.

And again, it isn’t quite the same to say you are pro choice, when even the women themselves say they felt like they had no choice. It’s not much of choice to make a woman feel they need an abortion.
The solution is surley not to deprive women of having a choice.

What kind of choice includes killing your baby? Do you think we should deprive people of having a choice to have slaves? We do not get to determine whether another innocent human life gets to live or die simply because we find he/she inconvenient. Yeah, that’s wrong. Everyone should be deprived of such a “choice”.

A car salesman will pressure you to purchase a car. Having the government say that women cannot buy cars would be much worse then what the car salesmans does. How do you fail to see this?

Tyrannical governments say, you are free to vote for anyone you want in our wonderful free elections. Of course if you don’t vote for X, we will make your life a living hell. How do you fail to see that that would not truly be a free and fair election?

Does your position allow a women to be free to carry a fetus to term or to decide not to attempt to carry a fetus to term?

The choice to commit the murder of an innocent is not a choice that can be granted by the state. Freedom is never obtained in choosing an immoral act. Also, the state has no power over my right to life, as my right to life is not given to me by the state. It is intrinsic to being human.

Pro life programs help her realize she’s got this and others are here to help, because she and her baby are worth it.
Do you take issue with pro life programs? I don't.

I think we can both agree we want to help women. We want women to be given the freedom and choices to flourish. So, I would think we could agree ‘having access to abortion’ is not necessary. And not only is it not necessary – itself is a hindrance to the freedom and flourishing of women. And it is also not a right we have the right to grant.

This sums up the silliness of your position:

[Clownboat]

None of what you said addresses the fact that our young will continue to have sex before marriage.

What needs to be addressed about that?

Reality. Stop pretending that our young will not have sex and unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion is hardly just by young people who get carried away.

Correct. Do you acknowledge that our young will continue to have sex and unwanted pregnancies?

And even because that can happen, how would that mean they shouldn’t be responsible for their actions/behavior?

No one has argued that they shouldn't be responsible for their actions so this is nothing more than a straw man.

Again, as if they are animals with no intelligence, reason, or control?

Who are you even debating? Who here debated that humans are animals with no intelligence, reason or control? You don't seem able to follow along here very well for some reason.

And what does any of that have to do with trying to justify the killing of an innocent human life?

I thought we were talking about abortions. Do you really think I am pro killing of innocent human life? Woohoo! The more we kill the merrier! I will not defend such a position as I do not hold one.

On topic. You are the one trying to make the argument that since it is difficult for young people to control their passions, abortion ought to be legal.

Nope, but women should be the ones to decide what they do with their own bodies, not you. That is an argument I actually make. I truly wish we didn't have a need for abortions, but I acknowledge that we do.

Hmmm . . . no need to make murder illegal, because people still commit murder, even though it is illegal. Yeah, that makes sense. We shouldn’t try to ban murder. Learn your logic.

Once again, you make my point without even realizing it, so thank you. Abortions will still happen, just like alcohol in prohibition times, even if they were to be illegal. Where abortions are illegal and still occurring, womens lives will be placed at greater risk. You only seem to care about the potential baby and nothing for the mothers. I don't get that.

Just telling someone they have freedom, doesn’t make it so. Sounds like you don’t really understand what actual freedom looks like.

Feel free to show that you speak the truth if you can, that I don't understand freedom. Anything to get away from the actual point that a fetus doesn't have the same value as a baby.

It’s like those touting “free love” in the 60’s actually thinking being promiscuous and engaging in casual sex equals freedom.

By definition, being free to do such things does equal freedom, but I am once again at a loss as to what you are now complaining about. Do you hate all sex?

Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. -JPII

In the real world:
free·dom
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

To argue that a woman should have the right to be a prostitute if she chooses, is to completely miss the definition of freedom. In choosing prostitution she could never be free. Similarly, choosing abortion does not make a woman free.

Being free to be a prostitute or being free to remove an unwanted fetus would be to act without hindrance or restraint. Yep, 'freedom'. You seem to now be at war with the human language.

Yeah, wouldn’t want to acknowledge the facts about what abortion actually is/does.

It is painfully obvious that you wish to avoid the fact of what an abortion is. I acknowledge that an abortion is the removal of an unwanted zygote, blastocyst or fetus and I would seek to limit them. Without restricting a womens right to do with her body as she sees fit. Yup, even If 'I' don't like it. You seem to think that your thoughts should be imposed on women. I cannot support you.

Best to refer to the killing of a baby as “reproductive health care”. Emotions in check, indeed.

What's wrong with calling it an abortion? What are you even going on about now? Who here do you think wants babies killed? Your emotions don't seem to be in check.

Well, then you really shouldn’t be supporting the world’s largest abortion providers,

Please show this imagined support I have for the world's largest abortion providers. When you can't, perhaps you will acknowledge it is your emtions speaking on my behalf. I say this because I don't think you are deliberately being dishonest.

You and I are discussing the value difference between something we abort and a 1 year old.

Careful now. Value can be based on opinion/emotions. How about we stick to the science/facts.

No need, I already illustrated that the value of what we abort it less then that of a 1 year old. You mosty want to ignore this point and lament about all sorts of other issues.

Both a baby outside the womb and a baby inside the womb are human lives. They have the same value/worth/dignity intrinsic and inalienable to being human.

They don't have the same value. If they did, you would choose saving the 5 blastocysts in a jar over the 1 year old child in the corner.
Could you actually imagine, if these were all yours, saving 5 blastocysts over your little Johnny? Of course not and we all know and understand why and wouldn't judge you for saving Johnny. That does not mean I want to kill babies or that a fetus has no value. The evil that you try to assign to my position of leaving it up to the mothers is just an emotional attack and not one rooted in reality.

Let’s not let our emotions tell us because we can hear the 1 year old giggle and laugh, the unborn child is a clump of cells/parasite in comparison. We’re all a clump of cells. Do try to keep your emotions in check.

I'm sorry, but which one did you save in the example you refuse to address because it shows the fault in your argument?

How about we give the fetus a few years to decide?

We can't as to do such a thing would impose on the right of a mother to determine if she wants to carry a fetus to term or not. Do you really think you should have a say in what women do in this case? I don't.

That seems like a reasonable amount of time when we are talking about a life or death decision. Oh, and let’s do whatever we want to anyone who can’t speak, since we can’t possibly know whether they want to live or die. Sounds reasonable.

If you really think this way, please start a thread on why you think we should be able to do whatever we want to anyone who can't speak. I'll likely defend them against you as I do women here.

What kind of choice includes killing your baby?

Are we not talking about abortions, which is the removal of an unwanted fetus? I have never argued for killing babies. I think I get it! You must stick with your emotional arguments because the value difference between an unwanted fetus and that of an actual baby has been demonstrated and you cannot deal with it. I don't like abortions either.

Do you think we should deprive people of having a choice to have slaves?

I am against slavery. Aren't you? Is this yet another distraction from the point that an unwanted fetus does not have the same value as a 1 year old (for example)? Whatever you have to do to avoid that, huh?

We do not get to determine whether another innocent human life gets to live or die simply because we find he/she inconvenient.

Now you are getting it! You are correct as the only person qualified to make this determination would be the mother even though you and I may not like her choice.
Progress!!!!!!

The choice to commit the murder of an innocent is not a choice that can be granted by the state.

Back to emotional arguemnts I see. Perhaps I can still work with you...?
To get us back to my actual point... If you were forced to murder a 1 year old, or forced to murder 5 blastocysts in a jar, which would you choose to murder? I would murder the 5 blastocysts because they have less value. How about you?

We want women to be given the freedom and choices to flourish. So, I would think we could agree ‘having access to abortion’ is not necessary.

Flourish? Will you determine what it means to flourish? Women should have the right to do with their bodies as a man does. Full stop, even it that means the removal of an unwanted fetus, something you nor I care for.

And not only is it not necessary – itself is a hindrance to the freedom and flourishing of women.

Nonsensical. You cannot argue for being pro womens rights when you are arguing to restrict them. That hypocrisy doesn't fly.

This sums up the silliness of your position:

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #69]

What needs to be addressed about that?
Reality. Stop pretending that our young will not have sex and unwanted pregnancies.

Sounds like you aren’t interested in having a serious conversation. I never said nor do I believe that young people will not have sex that results in unplanned pregnancies. My point was, I have no idea what that has to do with the price of tea in China. The fact that unplanned pregnancies occur have absolutely nothing to do with whether we have the right to kill an innocent unborn. I know you want to keep dancing around the topic with lots of unrelated issues, but doing so is simply a distraction and emotional appeal.

I thought we were talking about abortions. Do you really think I am pro killing of innocent human life? Woohoo! The more we kill the merrier! I will not defend such a position as I do not hold one.

Again, please open a biology book. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. We are talking about a human life. And I am glad you admit that it would be wrong to kill an innocent human life.

women should be the ones to decide what they do with their own bodies, not you.

What about the body of the unborn?


You are aware that under Roe, a woman could obtain an abortion up until the moment of birth, right? The unborn have bodies. Look at any ultrasound image, or the remains of any abortion. Those tiny little fingers and feet that get ground down in garbage disposals are body parts.


But you are correct, neither I or you get to decide to kill another innocent human’s body.

I truly wish we didn't have a need for abortions, but I acknowledge that we do.

I’m pretty sure people made the exact same argument regarding slavery. It didn’t make it right.

You only seem to care about the potential baby and nothing for the mothers. I don't get that.

I know that is the repeated stereotype from those who share your position, but it is absolutely unfounded. There are so many programs and more and more being established every day to help women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy. Programs to give them the support they need. Programs to help them physically, emotionally, to help them in continuing their education, to help them with housing and finances, etc. It is the pro aborts who don’t want to help the women. They offer abortion as the only answer and they attack and damage pregnancy crisis centers that are there to help women.

You and I are discussing the value difference between something we abort and a 1 year old.

Correct. And like I said both are human beings and have the same value simply in being human beings. This is exactly what I said in my previous post, “Both a baby outside the womb and a baby inside the womb are human lives. They have the same value/worth/dignity intrinsic and inalienable to being human.”

They don't have the same value.

They do.

If they did, you would choose saving the 5 blastocysts in a jar over the 1 year old child in the corner.

I never said I wouldn’t choose the embryos over the child. I did say, I could see people doing so, in the same way I could see a person choosing to save their own child over someone else’s child. This doesn’t mean the other person’s child does not have equal value/worth/dignity.

I also pointed out that human nature does not necessarily have anything to do with what is right/good, or a determinant of value. A drug addict would probably choose to save some drugs. Given his addiction, it would be human nature for him to do so. Of course, we all know that just because a drug addict would save a bag of drugs from a burning building doesn’t mean the drugs have greater value than a human life.

You cannot argue for being pro womens rights when you are arguing to restrict them.

I would say the same thing back to you. I do not think you are aware of all the ways legalized abortion restricts women. Again, the social research shows women regret their abortion, felt they were pressured into having one, and ultimately felt as if they had no choice. I will also remind you the majority of Pro-lifers are women.


Also, what part of ‘where one human life begins, another human life’s right’s ends’, don’t you get? You may care about the female who doesn’t want to be pregnant right now, but what about the female in the womb? Why restrict her right to life? She is the most vulnerable among us. She is being marginalized. Who will fight for her?


Abortion is anti life and anti woman. Your position is equivalent to the dead beat dad’s – “I didn’t plan this pregnancy. I didn’t want a baby. Financially what makes the most sense is to get an abortion. Having an abortion will make ‘the problem’ go away. If you choose to have this baby, you will get no help from me. You’ll be on your own. Don’t expect me to support you. I want no part of this. Choosing to have this baby would be irresponsible and you will simply end up being a burden to others”


Pro Choice fail: “Well, I personally hate abortion and wish there were less abortions, but it is a necessary evil -- if we didn’t permit abortion, these women will end up being quite a drain on society. It’s not really about what she wants. She needs to consider the common good. Because I don’t really want to pay for her “mistake”. It takes a village is overrated honey, when it affects my pocket book. Women need to get in line with the program. Let’s hear it for being pro women!!! Yay women!”