Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

Yes. I perceive it's the tactic of hiding the lack of a defense by increasing the 'noise' of attack. I have asked multiple times for WOZ's justification for imposing individual ideas and opinions on everyone else, and have gotten only more aggressive and irrational accusations in return. It's clear that this question of ignoring the rights of others is not going to be acknowledged, let alone answered. Yet this is, in fact, the essential issue fueling the abortion debate, rather than the argument over it being right or wrong.
Yes, I think that's the whole point of WOZ's rather disingenuous argument ... to avoid the issue of individual liberty all together.

:doh:

PureX - should late-term abortions be legal? Why did you vote the way you did about what you feel the law should be if you don't actually believe people should follow said law(s)?

You're talking in circles.

That abortion is "murder" is your opinion. Is it really that impossible for you to recognize that your own opinions are opinions? Or are you just repeating your opinions over and over in the hopes that they will somehow magically be transformed into a reality unto themselves?

I specifically asked what pro-choicers feel should be the law regarding abortion. You answered abortion should be illegal after a certain period of time. If your opinion were law, wouldn't it then be more than just an opinion?

You want it to be illegal but you don't really want it to be illegal because you don't want to impose your opinion on women wanting late-term abortions. Did someone twist your arm to make you vote the way you did? Are you changing your answer? :liberals:

Otherwise, you are effectively debating yourself.

 

[WizardofOz]

Did you read this rhetoric? You answered both yes and no to the question: "Is the mother the moral equivalent to a blastocyst?".

Oh it was quite verbose, I'll give you that...as a matter of fact, it was quite the wordy dodge. Up to this point in our prior argument I was simply getting more of the same....like arguing with a bratty child, it was getting me nowhere....similar to the wordy tripe I'm getting here. :juggle:

Because I am showing you (and have showed you already) how you are presenting a false dilemma. You are being more obtuse than usual on this (failed) point.

Again, A blastocyst does not necessarily need to be considered a moral equal to the mother in order to want to legally protect the blastocyst from being aborted

Your equation is a deflective red herring and nothing more.

A kitten is not the moral equivelant of a human but that doesn't mean one should go around bashing in kitten skulls.

This is like your burning building analogy that even other pro-choicers told you was bunk. Remember that?

You can keep bringing up your fallacious arguments all you want and repeat them ad naseum but unfortunately for you repetition alone does not a make an a fallacious argument any more valid.

So? By association my vote reflected the "highlighted" vote...plus its an open forum. Get over it.

That doesn't mean you speak for PureX and......I answered your post. Looks like you are the one who needs to "get over it".

umm, yes I did while PureX even reiterated and bolded it! To jog your selective memory: You're simply avoiding the fact that pro-choicers value relevant liberties over tyrannically imposing personal views.

Until they don't. After week X they are OK with imposing their personal views. Given enough time (duration of any given pregnancy) nearly all pro-choicers become pro-life.

Does the concepts of implication, hypothetical and compromise somehow elude you?
Are you really this thick...or just too proud to admit you jumped to conclusions?

More projection.

The concept of implication is eluding PureX! I asked a specific question and both you and PureX are crying over the implication of your answer. It's your own fault if you read something into the question that isn't there and jumped to unfounded conclusions regarding my intent.

Because you've overreached on your own thread. Okay, so if we're to take your poll as literal as you assert...our votes did not reflect your ulterior motives. So, I suppose the jokes on us...you baited us and caught us in your "trap". Cue Woz's chest-thumping K: .....ok you win, so what?

I asked about specifically the law so the "but that's just my opinion" backtracking doesn't really fly.

Maybe ask your mommy to hold your hand and read it to you next time so you give a response you actually comfortable defending.

To blame me for your answer(s) is about as juvenile as it gets.

Explain to PX and I how allowing others to choose their own moral compass regarding abortion....is being tyrannical? :sigh:

Because if abortion after a certain period is illegal (based on his and your (former) response) then to deny allowing a woman to choose her own moral compass about late-term abortion is tyrannical.

Or, you're playing both sides of the "tyrannical" argument.

 

[quip]

Because I am showing you (and have showed you already) how you are presenting a false dilemma. You are being more obtuse than usual on this (failed) point.

Again, A blastocyst does not necessarily need to be considered a moral equal to the mother in order to want to legally protect the blastocyst from being aborted

Your equation is a deflective red herring and nothing more.

:doh: It's not a false dilemma to the anti-abortionist who takes a deontological (black/white) position on the matter. You, on the other hand, want it both ways. You claim, categorically: Yes - They are both members of the same species and both should have equal protection under the law.
Then, subsequently claim they are not the moral equal of one another. If they're both to be - categorically - protected under the law - under the notion that they are both members of the same species - then where lies this moral disparity you claim exists? You simply want it both ways...which cannot be logically nor legally accommodated.

Actually, your distinction is no more than an illusion. But to be honest, this is not solely your intellectual inconsistency...rather its a fundamental flaw of the anti-abortion argument in general...but I digress.

Yet, what is truly rich is that you expect Px and I to follow you along on your little logical/moral, flip-flop escapade but yet, somehow you expect us to conform to some black/white standard regarding your poll!

You're a wonderful study in inconsistency there Oz. :dizzy:

A kitten is not the moral equivelant of a human but that doesn't mean one should go around bashing in kitten skulls.

There's no liberties at stake upholding bashing kittens skulls in.
This is an irrelevant, emotion eliciting straw-man.

That doesn't mean you speak for PureX and......I answered your post. Looks like you are the one who needs to "get over it".

Who are you to make such a determination for PureX...kind of ironic, yes? Anyway, you're the one who's persisting in whining over my "speaking for PureX".....

Until they don't. After week X they are OK with imposing their personal views. Given enough time (duration of any given pregnancy) nearly all pro-choicers become pro-life.

This does not follow.

More projection.

More dodging.

The concept of implication is eluding PureX! I asked a specific question and both you and PureX are crying over the implication of your answer. It's your own fault if you read something into the question that isn't there and jumped to unfounded conclusions regarding my intent.

Ok fair enough, now have the integrity to allow us to explain our views without bias.

I asked about specifically the law so the "but that's just my opinion" backtracking doesn't really fly.

Maybe ask your mommy to hold your hand and read it to you next time so you give a response you actually comfortable defending.

To blame me for your answer(s) is about as juvenile as it gets.

This doesn't excuse your intellectual obtuseness after we've explained our reasons behind our votes.

Because if abortion after a certain period is illegal (based on his and your (former) response) then to deny allowing a woman to choose her own moral compass about late-term abortion is tyrannical.

Or, you're playing both sides of the "tyrannical" argument.

Again, this assumes our votes reflect your intentions. Quit being thick.

 

[WizardofOz]

:doh: It's not a false dilemma to the anti-abortionist who takes a deontological (black/white) position on the matter. You, on the other hand, want it both ways. You claim, categorically: Yes - They are both members of the same species and both should have equal protection under the law.
Then, subsequently claim they are not the moral equal of one another.

Stop right there. Your reading comprehension is suspect. I am not making this claim. I answered your question both ways to show how it is a false dilemma.

I don't need to make a claim one way or the other. My position does not require such a claim in the first place. Whether they are equal or not (whatever that even means) has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.

If they're both to be - categorically - protected under the law then where lies this moral distinction you claim exists? You simply want it both ways...which cannot be logically nor legally accommodated.

An 8 month old fetus is not considered a moral equivalent of the mother by the government yet you cannot legally abort an 8 month old fetus.

Is the government playing it both ways?

:idea: OR - is your equation completely irrelevant and fallacious to boot as I have pointed out repeatedly.

Actually, your distinction is no more than an illusion. But to be honest, this is not solely your intellectual inconsistency...rather its a fundamental flaw of the anti-abortion argument in general...but I digress.

You digress with no evidence to support your declaration. Your usual.

Yet, what is truly rich is that you expect Px and I to follow you along on your little logical/moral, flip-flop escapade but yet, somehow you expect us to conform to some black/white standard regarding your poll!

I expect PureX to stick by his response to the poll. He seems unwilling or incapable of doing so. I am sure he needs you to defend him as if he's incapable of speaking for himself.

You're a wonderful study in inconsistency there Oz. :dizzy:

Another empty declaration.

There's no liberties at stake justifying bashing kittens skulls in.
This is an irrelevant, emotion eliciting straw-man.

It simply makes the point that subject A need not be the moral equivalent of subject B in order for both to have legal protection from being killed unnecessarily.

Again, a blastocyst need not be considered a moral equivalent to wish to grant it legal protection from being electively killed.

Who are you to make such a determination for PureX...kind of ironic, yes? Anyway, you're the one who's persisting in whining over my "speaking for PureX".....

More projecting. You are making determinations for PureX by effectively debating on his behalf.

Wouldn't it be better for all parties involved if he....:idea: speaks for himself?

Did he ask you to speak on his behalf?

After week X they are OK with imposing their personal views. Given enough time (duration of any given pregnancy) nearly all pro-choicers become pro-life.

This does not follow.

The further a pregnancy moves along the more people will be pro-life in regard to said pregnancy.

Ok fair enough, now have the integrity to allow us to explain our views without bias.

The floor is all yours. The thread is on page 33. How much more time do you require?

This doesn't excuse your intellectual obtuseness after we've explained our reasons behind our votes.

PureX is effectively countering his own vote so yeah contradicting yourself is usually going to lead to unneeded confusion. Again, if he voted for a position he is incapable of defending that is his problem.

Again, this assumes our votes reflect your intentions. Quit being thick.

If someone asks what a law should be it would lead others to believe that they mean what they say when they answer.

 

[PureX]

PureX - should late-term abortions be legal? Why did you vote the way you did about what you feel the law should be if you don't actually believe people should follow said law(s)?

You're talking in circles.

No, you're just refusing to recognize the difference between a personal feeling and opinion about abortion, and a desire to impose that opinion on others. And I think you're refusing to recognize that because you can justify your desire to impose your own feelings and opinions of other people. And the longer you go on with this farce the more obvious it becomes.

I specifically asked what pro-choicers feel should be the law regarding abortion. You answered abortion should be illegal ...

No, I answered that I feel abortion should be illegal after a certain period of time.

If your opinion were law, wouldn't it then be more than just an opinion?

No, it would still just be my opinion. That it is also my society's opinion is society's business, and society's doing, not mine. The law should be whatever our society determines that it be, by the mechanisms society has chosen to make those determinations. My choice, then, will be what I determine it should be within those parameters.

You want it to be illegal but ...

I don't want it to be legal or illegal. I do not apply my "wants" to the laws of the land. I agree with lots of laws that I may not want to be a law, or want to obey. But part of growing up involves understanding the difference between what I need and what I want, and what my society needs and what I might want for it. In this case I believe that the freedom to choose is more important than what you or I think people should be choosing. The fact that you apparently don't already understand this troubles me. Because these are things you should have learned long ago.

 

[quip]

Stop right there. Your reading comprehension is suspect. I am not making this claim. I answered your question both ways to show how it is a false dilemma.

I don't need to make a claim one way or the other. My position does not require such a claim in the first place. Whether they are equal or not (whatever that even means) has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.

So, you answered my question both ways...but you're not making any claims. How convenient

An 8 month old fetus is not considered a moral equivalent of the mother by the government yet you cannot legally abort an 8 month old fetus.

Is the government playing it both ways?

Well, since the "government" reflects all partisan views regarding abortion...I would say yes.

I've got to go...so I'll leave you to your convenient backpedaling.

Awaiting your response

 

[WizardofOz]

No, you're just refusing to recognize the difference between a personal feeling and opinion about abortion, and a desire to impose that opinion on others.

The poll didn't simply ask your personal opinion about your own abortion scenario. It asked what you think the law should be. If it's a law it is necessarily imposed on others.

You are refusing to recognize how the question was worded and for some reason are blaming me for how you answered. Grow up and stick by your vote or explain how you disagree with it.

And I think you're refusing to recognize that because you can justify your desire to impose your own feelings and opinions of other people. And the longer you go on with this farce the more obvious it becomes.

Your answer indicates that you are willing to impose your feelings. Otherwise, should all abortion be legal for any reason at anytime?

Change your answer if you'd like, just be ready to defend late-term abortion.

No, I answered that I feel abortion should be illegal after a certain period of time.

And the implication of such a position is that your feelings will be imposed on others if the law you prefer were reality.

No, it would still just be my opinion. That it is also my society's opinion is society's business, and society's doing, not mine. The law should be whatever our society determines that it be, by the mechanisms society has chosen to make those determinations. My choice, then, will be what I determine it should be within those parameters.

I understand how laws are made. Are you unable to defend your position and its implications? If the law was how you wish it to be it would be more than just an opinion whether you want to concede these implications or not.

I don't want it to be legal or illegal.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say.

I do not apply my "wants" to the laws of the land. I agree with lots of laws that I may not want to be a law, or want to obey. But part of growing up involves understanding the difference between what I need and what I want, and what my society needs and what I might want for it.

That's why I asked what you feel the law should be. It's not about you it's about society and your proscription for it.

In this case I believe that the freedom to choose is more important than what you or I think people should be choosing. The fact that you apparently don't already understand this troubles me. Because these are things you should have learned long ago.

So, you should have voted "Anytime for any reason"

Correct?

 

[WizardofOz]

So, you answered my question both ways...but you're not making any claims. How convenient

Explained ad naseum. It is a wholly unnecessary claim. It is a red herring. It is deflective. It has nothing to do with my position etc etc.

Well, since the "government" reflects all partisan views regarding abortion...I would say yes.

Convenient. Or, there is absolutely no reason why moral equivalents need enter the debate, your transparent attempts to pigeonhole notwithstanding.

 

[quip]

Explained ad naseum. It is a wholly unnecessary claim. It is a red herring. It is deflective. It has nothing to do with my position etc etc.

Convenient. Or, there is absolutely no reason why moral equivalents need enter the debate, your transparent attempts to pigeonhole notwithstanding.

What?!

You resurrected this tired argument...apparently you had a bone to pick, though the only bone presented....was a funny one. :chuckle:

As far as I'm concerned, you're done...your shell game wasn't as impressive as you believed it to be. :juggle:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Quoted for Truth

The big problem with this discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.

And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which b1ows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life.

 

[WizardofOz]

What?!

Does any word or meaning require even further explanation?

You resurrected this tired argument...

Actually, you resurrected your tired argument here i.e. "from prior discussion".....

I think they call this...projecting

apparently you had a bone to pick, though the only bone presented....was a funny one. :chuckle:

I had a bone to pick yet you're the one who jumped and responded to my post to....not you.

So, just more projecting on your part.

As far as I'm concerned, you're done...your shell game wasn't as impressive as you believed it to be. :juggle:

I know, I know. You're more of a red herring and false dilemma type. Hey, is that a burning building with Petri dishes inside over there?

 

[Ecumenicist]

If you want to have a reasoned discussion about this topic (if that is at all possible) with the so-called "pro-abortion" crowd, the topic of women having rights and control of their own bodies needs to be included. As in all contentious topics, both sides do not even discuss the same topic. They yell past each other "protect the fetus, protect the fetus" and "woman's rights, woman's rights," and neither side hears the other.

There are theological and biblical precedents for recognizing the rights of individuals to control their own bodies and well being as well as "protecting innocents," which seems to be the biblical argument against abortion. (Are not women innocent as well in the cases of rape and incest? How do those scriptures apply to them?) There are also biblical theological precedents against dehumanizing individuals, again it could be argued that they apply to both women and fetuses.

Keeping the discussion to just legalize and science dehumanizes both women and the unborn, as being human means more than just having a heartbeat. This could be a great theological discussion about the nature of Spirit, the nature of Life, the nature of God's relationship with women and their children, and men as parents as well.

 

[PureX]

The poll didn't simply ask your personal opinion about your own abortion scenario. It asked what you think the law should be. You are refusing to recognize how the question was worded and for some reason are blaming me for how you answered. Grow up and stick by your vote or explain how you disagree with it.

Your question doesn't get to dictate my answer. I have explained what I think about this issue several times, in detail. But you just keep ignoring that because you have to maintain your attack to avoid answering my questions in return.

Your game is completely exposed, and you obviously aren't honest enough to just admit that you have no justification for wanting to impose your beliefs on everyone else, so we're done here.

 

[WizardofOz]

Your question doesn't get to dictate my answer.

I would think your answer would dictate your answer. :idunno:

I have explained what I think about this issue several times, in detail. But you just keep ignoring that

I have not ignored your answer (clarification of your answer). It just seems to me as if you don't really mean what you voted for, which is fine but why did you vote the way you did if you didn't really mean it?

You're playing this both ways. On the one hand you say you think abortion should only be legal up to a certain point but then you say you don't want your opinion of the law to be binding on anyone else when the very nature of the law is that it is binding on others.

because you have to maintain your attack to avoid answering my questions in return.

What questions have I avoided? By all means....

Because I don't feel I've avoided a thing.

Your game is completely exposed

:sigh:
What game? Explain the game you perceive me as playing.

and you obviously aren't honest enough to just admit that you have no justification for wanting to impose your beliefs on everyone else

Because I don't want abortion to be legal? How is this any different from the individual who considers themselves to be pro-choice but doesn't want late-term abortions to be legal? Are they imposing their belief on everyone else?

Once again, you play it both ways.

so we're done here.

Smells like a cop-out to me so you don't have to defend your wishy-washy position but hey, that's on you.

 

[WizardofOz]

If you want to have a reasoned discussion about this topic (if that is at all possible) with the so-called "pro-abortion" crowd, the topic of women having rights and control of their own bodies needs to be included. As in all contentious topics, both sides do not even discuss the same topic. They yell past each other "protect the fetus, protect the fetus" and "woman's rights, woman's rights," and neither side hears the other.

No, I think most of the participants of this thread understand one another just fine.

There are theological and biblical precedents for recognizing the rights of individuals to control their own bodies and well being as well as "protecting innocents," which seems to be the biblical argument against abortion.

The bible has nothing to do with this thread. This debate must be fought on a secular basis otherwise it's just white noise for at least one side if not the majority of both.

(Are not women innocent as well in the cases of rape and incest?

Of course. In addition, the unborn is innocent in all cases regardless of circumstance.
If a woman is raped but doesn't find out until 4 months in that she's pregnant, should she be able to legally obtain an abortion? 5 months? 6, 7?

Keeping the discussion to just legalize and science dehumanizes both women and the unborn, as being human means more than just having a heartbeat.

Killing the innocent is a way of dehumanizing them. It's like they never existed, which is kinda the point behind an abortion, isn't it? :think:

 

[WizardofOz]

I just don't see any reason for late term abortions unless they're medical reasons.

In your opinion, should it be legal to obtain an elective abortion at 7 months? Can you answer this clearly?

 

[Rusha]

If you want to have a reasoned discussion about this topic (if that is at all possible) with the so-called "pro-abortion" crowd, the topic of women having rights and control of their own bodies needs to be included.

No thank you. I have never bought into that excuse. I don't believe there is much concern about health at all. This is about women making excuses to not be responsible for the life they willingly participated in creating.

 

[quip]

No thank you. I have never bought into that excuse. I don't believe there is much concern about health at all. This is about women making excuses to not be responsible for the life they willingly participated in creating.

There's no excuse to be had...women's rights concern constitutionally granted liberties.

 

[whitestone]

If you believe abortion should be legal, do you believe it should be legal for the duration of pregnancy or is there some cutoff point after which you feel it should no longer be a legal option?

If you choose an option that includes "up to a certain period during pregnancy", please explain where this distinction should be made and why.

I'd like to keep posts limited to those who consider themselves pro-choice for at least the first page or two.

If I missed an option, let me know!

and see when i went to vote i noticed choice #1 is "anytime",,,and choice #4 is "anytime during pregnancy",,,,so does choice #1 mean that we can preform the abortion on a baby born 50 or 60 years "after their mother was pregnant"?

 

[whitestone]

i guess i could have gone the other direction also and said that the man and woman could have decided not to have premarital sex,,so hence "before she ever got pregnant",,but that choice is not listed,,,