Going to bed guys. Have fun.

I am over the course of our conversation.  I figure that is what conversations re about, aren't they?  Or am I supposed to take a firm stance and throw the gauntlet down and refuse to hear what you have to say because I have already made up my mind, and I can never learn?

I prefer the dialectical, over the irrational.  YMMV though.

Or, you might want to reevaluate your own dearly held beliefs.  Which is really quiet difficult I understand and I can not fault you if you have no desire to do so.

Usually the world is bigger than two black and white answers that you seem to think things get boiled down to.  In this case, I believe that to be true also.

First, please trim your quote trees, I'm getting tired of doing it for you.

Second, no it's not acceptable.

Biologically speaking sex wasn't first made pleasurable and then reproduction became a little added perk. The driving force in any animal is continuation of the species, it is at the most basic state of being. No we are without argument more advanced than any other animal, and can deduce that while sex is biologically for the purpose of reproduction, it can and is pleasurable (if you're doing it right that is). Yes, some people do indeed engage in it primarily for the pleasure aspect of it *raises hand and waves it enthusiastically.* However, I know full well that reproduction is a very real potential consequence of my choice, and the freedom to make that choice also comes with the responsibility to raise that child that was conceived as the result of n action whose sole biological purpose is creating that life.

The problem is your argument is straight out of the free love 60's, arguably the beginning of the societal decomposition of this great country.

Going to pick up my wife, who is coming home from Atlanta, she gains three hours, thats a plus!

Mostly excellent conversation here tonight though.  Lots of food for thought.

It is not a "weak data point," my friend. I used to be a major anti-abortionist, but things change as you get older...you should chill!

I'm going to bed Sedona, I'll be happy to answer your questions when you show the courtesy of trimming your quote trees. I'm not going to spend five minutes trying to edit your quotes on my phone so I can reply.

Goodnight Sir

Here's some textbook for you:


"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

I tend to vote republican, but it's starting to seem that it's all the same.

As a "republican", party lines dictate that I'm anti-abortion... And truthfully I do hate the idea of abortion in it's entirety. I had an ex-GF abort a child of ours, so it even hits especially close to home.

That being said, I still feel like it should be a personal choice and nothing else. The .gov should not manage the way you live your life. You will answer for all you've done (or not done) at some point. The government is really just like a women's hairdresser's shop on fucking extreme steroids and nothing more... Somebody bitches about something once and it somehow turns into a national debate based upon party lines and divisiveness. Nobody who matters actually gives a fuck about how it affects real people; It's all just fucking bullshit.

No.

There should NEVER be any form of government mandated welfare.

I'm sure it's been said, but not a fucking chance.

The people that will vote D because of abortion are going to vote D no matter what.


However, there are plenty of dirt poor religious folks that would probably vote D, if not for abortion and other religious issues.

Google up Margret Sanger and her ilk. Then realize the modern Democratic Party is filled with people who believe that the blacks and hispanics will never accomplish anything without the help of the Democrats and the .Gov there to supervise and control their environment.

Free contraception and aborts have done nothing to stem the number of out-of-wedlock births and government dependency.

I should post a conversation about abortion that my father and I had with yellow dog Democrats in our family. They were decrying the Republicans opposition to abortion, when you dug down into the core of their argument....it was all about race.

But would you be ok buying the gun or knife used in the killing, or paying for an assassin to do the job for you?

Tell that to Kermit Gosnell....or better yet send a letter to him in prison.

I think the root question is "When should the state legally recognize personhood, and forcibly secure the rights of the unborn against the intent of it's mother."

There's more than one moral question involved.




One line is just as arbitrary as another. Conception is a completely arbitrary line, so is birth.

I'm personally of the opinion that 20 weeks is an appropriate place to put that arbitrary line where the state is concerned, not because I think abortion is moral at 15 weeks and/or suddenly murder at 25, but because the farther away from that line you move in either direction the more horrific things get, either having the state prosecuting rape victims or parents who lose kids to fatal genetic defects (or at least intruding into those situations, enforcement gets really problematic ) for not carrying to term or the other way allowing viable infants to be terminated.

I'd be tempted to say even a bit earlier but then you end up pressuring people to have a procedure while they can who are not in a position to make good decisions rapidly. Later made more sense in the past when viability was more difficult medically.

It doesn't hurt that somewhere in the midterm is the point of political viability either. When you eliminate the hedged positions that ease the conscience but aren't actually workable from an enforcement perspective like rape exceptions you end up with significant minorities and political counterproductivity at the far ends of the range of possibilities.

I believe abortion to be murder.  Therefore, I cannot in good faith support a candidate that is pro-abortion.

The problem republicans have is not their (nearly non-existent) pro-life stance.  It's the fact that their stated party platform is nearly the exact opposite of what most of them actually DO.


If they'd start actually fighting for conservative principles rather than trampling them, they'd win by a landslide.


But if they keep running milk-toast faux-conservatives like Romney and McCain, they will continue to lose.


Give us someone to be proud to follow and fight for and the conservative base will show its true power.  Keep running Trojan horses and, well, I'm tired of having Lucy pull the football away at the last moment.  I'll just take my ball and go home.

No, it's not.  Do you know what "arbitrary" means?

I'm not making the argument, but I will concede that conception isn't arbitrary.  Viability is subject to much debate though.  Of course there is no debate when rabid anti-choicers are adamant that using the morning after pill is exactly the same as a third trimester abortion.

So what should the penalty be for a woman who takes a 'morning-after' pill? Lethal injection? Life without parole?

Nice strawman you once again erected there.
My reasons for opposing abortion have zero to do with religion.

I was almost aborted and had it not been for my mother doing the right thing and not listening to my father I wouldn't fucking be here.
Thank God abortion was illegal in Michigan when I was born and they had a long drive to New York.

Killing a child in the womb is wrong period and don't give me that shit about being viable. My twin daughters were very early and had to be kept in an incubator for three weeks. Not to mention babies just out of the womb and very young children are not able to live on their own either.

With our modern advances most premature babies now survive with the proper care. As time has gone on we have been able to save fetuses born earlier and earlier.

Blows your bullshit viability argument out of the water.

Slavery was legal too. Was it moral or right?

A baby has committed no crime. Logic fail as usual for the leftists.

Or logic.

I think democrats ...I mean libertarians have covered all the democrat party talking points. Will they go back to DU and huffpost now.

Slavery is a legal term too, smart guy.

And according to your twisted logic a person who was not born would be ok to kill whenever.

You've referenced your military service in the past.   I do hope and assume that you were never directly involved in any ground combat.  

I guess we should let the voters decide that question through their elected representatives.

no.  can't have that.

we need judges because the peons have no right to representative democracy.  judicial tyranny defines freedom in modern america.

nice reductio ad absurdum.

"If you are against abortion you want to execute people who take the morning after pill!!!!!"

don't you have a dirty hippie to guard against?

We're working on it.

I think abortion is murder. That being said, I support it in a lot of situations, and many other forms of killing, but not all. I don't think I could support aborting one of my own though. I don't think it would be unreasonable for it to be criminal for those that use abortion repeatedly as birth control.

Leather is dead animal skin, veil is tortured baby cow, etc. etc. There are many copouts for various nasty and sad things in the world that people find hard to accept but turn a blind eye to do so. Better to accept things for what they actually are with eyes open than blindly try to justify them. In the end, the majority decides what's right.

In for the shitstorm if I haven't missed it yet.

Most states have fetal homicide laws, which define the killing of a fetus as murder -except in cases where abortions are legal.

Abortion in conjunction with these laws is legal murder.

It's a separate life, a human life, within a person. And it is under the 'authority' or 'jurisdiction', for lack of a better word, of the person in which it is living.

Just like a child is at a parents mercy if the parent wants to teach it crazy politics, religion, and horrible diet and poor education and morals. It sucks, but a child is under a parents control and we can't interfere and take obese little commies away from the parents who abuse them this way.

Before the child is born, society is even less able to protect it from the mothers' bad decisions. It sucks. It's so frustrating. But we don't have the authority to help the children or the fetuses. All we can do is beg them to stop, and to make better choices.

Should we let the voters decide through their elected representatives whether or not you should own a firearm?

Should we let the voters decide through their elected representatives what religion you should be?

Should we let the voters decide through their elected representatives what you are allowed to say?

Should we let the voters decide through their elected representatives what you are allowed to look at?

If she doesn't like the results of the reproductive system she should get her tubes tied

Oh.

so abortion, like gay marriage, is a CONSTITUTIONAL right?

Could you please point to the part of the CONSTITUTION that talks about infanticide?  I missed that part.

Or does the constitution protect whatever a judge says it protects?  In which case, it protects anything the robbed oligarchy says it does.

I take it you have never heard of Child Protective Services?

That's just not true.  Would you like me to tell you about the dozens of children I've legally removed from the "care" of their parents?  

FWIW, I'm pro-choice.

As far as I know, a coma isn't brain death, is it? I'm talking about an overall, relatively static state of consciousness. Not like whether you're asleep or awake. General cognitive ability.

Your own grandfather is your business, or your parents and uncles and aunts, most likely. I know, more or less, where I would be comfortable pulling the plug on my catatonic relatives.

I don't have an answer for your last question. I don't think I need to. Let's focus on where it's clear cut. Not late term abortion or euthanizing people that are on any borderline. Because we're talking about euthanasia in general, not 'the lines'. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong at 6 weeks. If euthanasia of adults is wrong, it's wrong when all they have is a brainstem.

I can think of no better guarantee of freedom than to let Justice Keagan determine who is, and is not, "human"

Much better than the unwashed masses doing it for themselves through yucky things like elections and what not.

Did I complain about your concept or about your argument?

You're plenty smart and you know why your argument was ridiculous. Why are you playing games? You're capable of much better, more substantial debate. I've seen you do it.

abortion is killing an inconvenient child.  the freedom to fuck men you don't want to have children with is the cornerstone of western civilization.

but its a right enshrined in the constitution, so we can never question it.

abortion is soooooooooooooo popular with the american people (the point of this thread) that we need judges to stop people from voting to stop it.

Yeah, I pretty much count it as murder. And it does apply here. It is part of the state's duty to stop people from murdering one another, and as part of that duty, there has to be a line where one becomes a person and is to be protected. There is nothing irrational or mystical in believing that point occurs some time prior to actual birth. It's just a disagreement. Inevitably, it seems those who think personhood only begins at birth either have an agenda or have no children of their own.



Stop trying to get ahead of things and cut off argument with cheap tactics and splitting words. I've enjoyed a lot of your posts here, but you're doing a find job of destroying my impression of you, not because of your position, but because of how you argue it.





 

This is pathetic. We are discussing whether or not it should be legal. If your only argument against the comparison is a circular definition, you've lost.
 

It's wrong.

Because history has proven those lines get redrawn.  Therefore, I am in full support of pushing them as far back as possible.

no its not. look at margaret sanger,. the founder of planned parenthood.  like the democratic party. Racist at its core.

You can't use history to back up a slippery slope fallacy or support an associative fallacy by fear/hate mongering about the red herring with which you're trying to associate your opponents argument with.

To put it simply: the awfulness of nazis/Sanger has no bearing on my right to euthanasia or abortion because they have no bearing on it.

Did you have fun with your evening of bedding guys?

Commas.  Learn them.  Use them.