Do I object? I wouldn't use any form of artificial birth control, which isn't to say that I would ban all forms if I were King. Some are more objectionable than others.

Irishpipes' response was about the topic of abortion, namely, that it is nearly impossible to find a common ground on the subject. I find nothing funny enough to LOL about this, either.

OK, what light has been shed here? What NEW ideas have been exchanged here that haven't been exchanged in other Internet discussion boards, in front of abortion clinics or water coolers at the office, in the classrooms, or anywhere else?

Personally, I don't look at these kinds of debates as a contest to be "won" by someone and someone else has to get a "consolation prize". This isn't a game we're talking about.

Critiquing the discussion format is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, and it should be obvious to most "grown adults" that this is Irishpipes' way of trying to gracefully disagree without things getting ugly regarding an issue as emotional as this.

Neither citizenship nor a Supreme Court ruling is relevant to the realization of someone as a human being. Otherwise, all immigrants would have a problem. And in case you didn't know, at one time Dred Scott wasn't granted rights because he was a slave.

What? The mother gets to choose....? What is she the mother of? Do fetuses have mothers?

What do you mean? You mean people can't go riding around the country and shooting non-American citizens?

-Rudey

Yep.

I see you really didn't read for comprehension. So, here goes.

It doesn't matter whether you see something to LOL about. I already stated what I was LOLing about and it wasn't abortion. If that keeps you up at night, fine.

If you don't think light has been shed on this topic, that's your business. Other people have probably read this thread and learned something new about other people's stances and abortion, in general.

Yeah...so you agree that it isn't a contest to be won. That's why I said these are idea exchanges and there's no need to give out consolation prizes when people continue to disagree.

What is relevant to the topic is a matter of opinion. Social issue debates are 50% topic-related and 50% discussion-format. Most of it becomes circular because of the discussion-format and not the topic itself. You don't have to announce that you gracefully disagree for things to not turn ugly. It's pretty clear when people stop posting to each other that the discussion has ended. Let's try it.

Now that's not true. What happens if a woman aborts her baby who would have grown up and discovered a cure for cancer??? or AIDS??

To those who support abortion - Would it have been ok for your mom to have an abortion?? Do you like the fact that your mother had the choice to kill you before you were born? Can you honestly say that thinking about your mom having an abortion instead of having you doesn't affect you at all??

That has been used in this thread before. Like I said before, there are millions of people in this world. People are born and die everyday. If the remaining millions of people can't find a cure to something, then...oh well.

This is funny and rather pointless question. Well...yeah...it would've been "okay" for my mom to have an abortion because it would've been her right to do so. Perhaps my spirit would've been manifested in the form of another body if she had chosen to do so. Maybe not. Life is full of possibilities. Thinking about my mom having an abortion doesn't affect me because I think that is a meaningless retrospective hypothetical. Social issues discussed through these types of hypotheticals become silly and unrealistic rather quickly.

True. Everyone that lives or dies has an affect (good or bad) on others. See how smoking affects the insurance rates for others even.

-Rudey

I think that abortion is different from most social issue debates because there truly is little or no common ground. Some pro-lifers would never approve of any legalized abortion and some pro-abortioners would never approve of any limits on abortion. If they did, their position would be inconsistent. It isn't like a budgetary issue where 2 sides can disagree and come to a compromise where everbody is somewhat satisfied. Another difficulty is that there are not just 2 sides - there are ardent pro-lifers, libertarian pro-lifers, etc. just as there are those for abortion on demand in all cases (the feminazi types), those who are pro-abortion except for late-term or partial-birth, etc. It is difficult to get a handle on the issue because of so many viewpoints.

Let's use national healthcare as an example. Let's say hypothetically that I totally oppose government healthcare programs. Let's say that you, my opponent, are totally in favor of instituting national health care. If we were both in Congress, we could theoretically get together and agree to create a safety net system that provides some government health care for the poor but basically leaves the system privatized. We would be both applauded and villified by our respective constituencies. I might not like the compromise, but I wouldn't feel like I did something truly horrible either. Some good could be achieved by our compromise.

Conversely, if we had our differing views on abortion and we agreed to allow abortions, but only if the pregnant woman was abused, poor, raped, and in the first trimester, our constituencies would largely villify us. It isn't the same as arguing over money. I would have agreed to accept certain murders. You would have agreed to grant rights to a blob. Neither side would approve.

You said it!

On what basis? Are you saying that your religious beliefs should be law?

Who said the beliefs had to be religious just because it was pro-life?

Besides, answer your own question - what basis gives a woman the right to kill another life? Yeah, I believe its another life. you may not, but thats besides the point. Can you answer your own question from your point of view or no????

Not true.

The middle ground with social issues generally lies with increased government intervention and regulation. This is how things such as gun ownership and abortion can remain legal but who qualifies for gun ownership or abortion is limited and closely monitored. Until the black market increases.

There are numerous arguments for pro-life and pro-choice and to be pro something doesn't mean you agree with every argument related to your side. You will never be able to make everyone happy. However, a middleground will be able to appease a significant percentage of people who are pro-life and pro-choice. Then people can fight it out over liberal/increased gov't involvement versus conservative/decreased gov't involvement and not the actual issue of abortion. It's a neverending battle.

On the basis that I would be a complete hypocrite if I told you that I believe that the unborn child is a person worthy of life and then didn't follow through to try to protect it just as I would the life of any other person. But, because the pro-abortion movement can always fall back on your assertion, abortion will always be legal. It doesn't mean that I want it that way.