News Article: Obama Lifts Ban on Abortions

[Bamaro]

I thought GW endangers us. Or so I'm told...

I guess you were told wrong. It endangers our economy, our social and political order, our way of life but not the existence of the human race.

 

[tidepws]

Obviously, you haven't seen The 11th Hour. If Leo says it, then it must be true.

 

[bamabake]

I'll tell you what's intellectual...using Obama's decision to change our tactics in fighting terrorism as a factor in questioning his Christianity.

It wasnt his decision to make us less safe I made that comment. It was his move on taxpayer funded abortion.

 

[Ldlane]

And for all those 2 million couples, there are plenty of foster kids out there, but they're not as "desirable".

BTW - There a lot of native kids that need homes. Social Service out here is swamped. We were considering if we were not able to have a child of our own within the next couple of year, but looks like we are going to get our own wish in August if things go well.

 

[bamabake]

Just using the semantics game against those who think they've got the word cornered.

I'm not surrendering any real estate.

I didnt see semantics in your post. I saw a statement of moral equivalence. If any group has hijacked the language it is the left anyway.
Must be swamp land you are peddling

 

[CrimsonCT]

We get into layers and layers of arguments and definitions, conditions, and hypothetical situations. And the issue becomes more and more complex, more and more unrecognizable.

Emotional appeal. Since your argument is not an intuitive one, either you must qualify your specific complaint or it is meaningless in an objective sense.

The reality is that when you break it down to it's smallest parts, one human is making a choice that prevents another human from living theirs.

And here you are oversimplifying yet again. You toss around the concept of life and your own specific timeline of when it emerges as if there is some universally-accepted, intrinsic meaning. There is not.

You said that if you put a fetus on a table it doesn't live, but an infant does. Not unless you feed it. If you put an infant on a table and choose not to feed it, it dies.

That is why I included the qualifier of biological dependence. You can't equate inherent and external effects here, which is what your argument does. The fetus on the table is biologically incapable of surviving. Conversely, the infant on the table is biologically capable of surviving. Sure, it may die after a few days if it is locked away from food sources (and that is true no matter one's age), but we're not arguing longevity here. One example has functioning organ systems that deliver nutrients to its cells and permit life. The other does not. The introduction of human intervention is a point of distraction. Dependence on other humans, behaviorally, is not a disqualifier for life, as I do not believe that the elderly should be drowned at our whim. My argument deals only with the biology.

 

[Tide n True]

***EDIT***

I've apologized to Ldlane if I have upset him or his wife. Tit-for-tat (becoming personal even if it has been thrown back from the other side) isn't the right way to go about things. Please delete from any other replies.

 

[uafan4life]

That is why I included the qualifier of biological dependence. You can't equate inherent and external effects here, which is what your argument does. The fetus on the table is biologically incapable of surviving. Conversely, the infant on the table is biologically capable of surviving. Sure, it may die after a few days if it is locked away from food sources (and that is true no matter one's age), but we're not arguing longevity here. One example has functioning organ systems that deliver nutrients to its cells and permit life. The other does not. The introduction of human intervention is a point of distraction. Dependence on other humans, behaviorally, is not a disqualifier for life, as I do not believe that the elderly should be drowned at our whim. My argument deals only with the biology.

And you're missing the point of my post and my argument. Whether or not you can place a fetus on a table and it live on its own is irrelevant. When the "legal" or "scientific" or "biological" definition of life begins is irrelevant.

All other things being equal, if you do not abort, the child is born and lives. If you abort, it does not. Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another.

Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another.

I can't say it any simpler, and I can't see any logical way to argue with that premise.

The only argument you can attempt to make against that premise is that "human life" cannot be prevented before it "officially" begins, therefore abortion is not preventing it. You might can attempt to make a philosophical argument in that method, but it is a sad, weak argument. The reality, no matter how much or how often you philosophize about it, is that abortion prevents life.

You can argue whether it prevents "life" from beginning versus continuing, but you cannot argue that it does not prevent life.

 

[Ldlane]

As if it is any of your business what I say, she know she has a choice!

 

[Tide n True]

As if it is any of your business what I say, she know she has a choice!

She does have a choice. But, it seems, she wants this baby. And I was sincere in saying "the tragic event." I've been too close to a number of miscarriages, and it's not something I wish on anyone. Congratulations to the both of you.

 

[jthomas666]

And you're missing the point of my post and my argument. Whether or not you can place a fetus on a table and it live on its own is irrelevant. When the "legal" or "scientific" or "biological" definition of life begins is irrelevant.

All other things being equal, if you do not abort, the child is born and lives. If you abort, it does not. Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another.

Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another.

I can't say it any simpler, and I can't see any logical way to argue with that premise.

The only argument you can attempt to make against that premise is that "human life" cannot be prevented before it "officially" begins, therefore abortion is not preventing it. You might can attempt to make a philosophical argument in that method, but it is a sad, weak argument. The reality, no matter how much or how often you philosophize about it, is that abortion prevents life.

You can argue whether it prevents "life" from beginning versus continuing, but you cannot argue that it does not prevent life.

You have really made some good points throughout this thread.

One thing that bothers me about this post is that you define the issue in terms that--by your own admission--deny even the possibility of opposition, which is a little disingenuous.

In addition, your primary point, "Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another" can easily be extended into the realm of birth control, which is clearly a choice that prevents the life of another.

I'm hoping that the inevitable descent of this thread into chaos can be forestalled a little longer.

 

[jthomas666]

This ship has already sailed.

 

[CrimsonCT]

All other things being equal, if you do not abort, the child is born and lives. If you abort, it does not. Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another.

Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another.

Yes, in the same way that choosing to either not have sex or undergo IVF prevents the possibility of life. But surely you wouldn't decry such choices. You're trying to sidestep the issue of defining where life begins, but you cannot do that in the abortion debate--it is too integral.

 

[uafan4life]

You have really made some good points throughout this thread.

Thank you. Likewise to the both of you (you and CrimsonCT). It's nice to be able to have intelligent discussion on issues such as this.

In addition, your primary point, "Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another" can easily be extended into the realm of birth control, which is clearly a choice that prevents the life of another.

Yes, in the same way that choosing to either not have sex or undergo IVF prevents the possibility of life.

One huge difference there. While you could attempt to use those points to make my argument a "slippery slope" argument, there is one huge difference between abortion and those points.

Abortion prevents life after the process of creating life has begun. Birth control, abstinence, and foregoing IVF are decisions that prevent life before that process has begun.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Yes, in the same way that choosing to either not have sex or undergo IVF prevents the possibility of life. But surely you wouldn't decry such choices. You're trying to sidestep the issue of defining where life begins, but you cannot do that in the abortion debate--it is too integral.

These are not really equivalent because the woman is not yet pregnant. If a woman chooses not to have sex or use IVF, she will not get pregnant. She is merely foregoing the possibility of getting pregnant.

Having sex or using IVF does not automatically create a baby, so the woman is not stopping human development in its tracks. But once a woman becomes pregnant, the baby/embryo/fetus/whathaveyou will continue to grow and develop naturally 100% of the time into a healthy child unless acted upon by an outside force (human or disease, etc). When a human "aborts" a baby in the womb, they are stopping a process that would have resulted in a human child. Natural causes do the same thing; I think we can all agree that a miscarage is tragic.

Heck, the word "Abortion" conotates the stopping of a process.

 

[bayoutider]

Yes, in the same way that choosing to either not have sex or undergo IVF prevents the possibility of life. But surely you wouldn't decry such choices. You're trying to sidestep the issue of defining where life begins, but you cannot do that in the abortion debate--it is too integral.

You simply cannot brow beat those of different opinion into agreeing with you. There no longer is a debate just different opinions that have been stated ad nauseam. I'm ready to close this uhhh discussion.

 

[jthomas666]

One huge difference there. While you could attempt to use those points to make my argument a "slippery slope" argument, there is one huge difference between abortion and those points.

Abortion prevents life after the process of creating life has begun. Birth control, abstinence, and foregoing IVF are decisions that prevent life before that process has begun.

Fair enough. I'd suggest that you not use "prevent" as it lends itself to blurred lines in this context.

 

[NYBamaFan]

You simply cannot brow beat those of different opinion into agreeing with you. There no longer is a debate just different opinions that have been stated ad nauseam. I'm ready to close this uhhh discussion.

This is a lesson that I am trying to learn, myself. I have a long way to go... :biggrin:

 

[uafan4life]

Fair enough. I'd suggest that you not use "prevent" as it lends itself to blurred lines in this context.

How about "abort the process of creating life"?

Good point, I guess it was just the first word to come to mind.

 

[jthomas666]

How about "abort the process of creating life"?

Good point, I guess it was just the first word to come to mind.

Keep it simple. If you abort the process of creating life, that strongly suggests that said life does not yet exist.

Sorry, every now and then the English teacher in me gets loose.