Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by starang21

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

This is ironic, because . . .

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is ironic, because . . .



. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.



This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"



Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

QFC

(Quoted For Co-sign-worthiness)

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point.

sounds pretty good to me.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is ironic, because . . .



. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

Nope. The appeal to authority is not a fallacy, because we are discussing the legal right to abortion, so appealing to federal law is not the same as appealing to the Bible, which would indeed qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority. The false dilemma is only false if you accept the idea that throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy there is only one life - the mother's - in question. To do that would be begging the question. As you know, (sic) is used when the writer does not wish to have a mistake in a quote mistaken for one of his/her own. That is how I used it - how, pray tell, should (sic) be used? An ad hominem attack would be my attacking the poster instead of her ideas, which I don't do. QED


This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

The difference between the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" and "at what point does a 'fetus" constitute a 'person' in a legal sense" is so minor that I don't mind at all changing the question to that - so, at what point DO you think a 'fetus" constitutes a 'person" in a legal sense?



Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person. If that is the case, then we ARE indeed on the same boat - we believe that there is a point before birth at which the fetus is a person with rights. I believe it is quite obvious that I'm not worried about being alone in my beliefs - but IF the above syllogism is true, then we do have at least some minor point of agreement from which we can have a productive discussion. If you don't believe that there is no point at which the fetus has rights, then you are correct. We have no beliefs in common. It is the failure of both sides to recognize possible areas of agreement that causes so much in the way of over-blown hyperbole, which does nothing to help anyone.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

[SWTXBelle]

Once more into the breech -

Originally Posted by starang21

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

Once more - I am contrasting the two. You were the one who phrased it in terms of "doing" something to a woman's body. The CONTRAST is that when a woman decides to get a boob job, she is indeed doing something to her body which does not affect anyone else. When she choses to have an abortion, then she is "doing" something which DOES have an impact on another body. Please do point to where I said anything about the rate or reasons for tattoos or abortion. I didn't - so quit with the red herrings.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

There is a difference between arguing that "a woman's body is at the forefront" and that a woman's choice always outweighs any possible rights of the fetus. A parasite? Really? Wow.



sounds pretty good to me.

So you DO believe that the right to abortion should only extend until the point of viability - 24 weeks on? Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

[DrPhil]

I believe starang21 agrees with the restriction of abortion at the 23-24 week mark.

Isn't the political term for late term abortions "partial birth abortion?" That's when the baby is aborted 4 months and beyond; and many consider this to be inappropriate because the baby is viable or almost viable. I only condone 4 month and beyond abortions if the mother and/or baby's lives are in danger.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh? A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Obviously, the results are far different here on our beloved GC. Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I believe starang21 agrees with the restriction of abortion at the 23-24 week mark.

Isn't the political term for late term abortions "partial birth abortion?" That's when the baby is aborted 4 months and beyond; and many consider this to be inappropriate because the baby is viable or almost viable. I only condone 4 month and beyond abortions if the mother and/or baby's lives are in danger.

Noted.

I believe "partial birth" is a particular procedure used for late term abortions, but that there are other methods (depending on how late we are talking).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one.

It's only as harsh as telling someone they are going based on emotion and not logic and reasoning.

We've already discussed what a "potential human" can become.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

This is funny.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.



eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

[Pearlove]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?
* I read the label both times, no mention was made. As a biology major and med school attendee, I always read the label very carefully. Also, I never said it was twice in one year, the first time I was 17.

"For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old."
I would not have been able to get into my choice college, as I would not have been able to finish high school, my high school does not allow for pregnant teens to attend. I would have had to wait and get my GRE. Also, to imply that I have less character than the girl who chose to keep her baby highlights your ignorance of this issue. This isn't an issue of character, I am fimly pro-choice and believe that my decision shows as much 'character as anyone else'.


"Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human? "
They have consciousness. That is what makes us human, I'm sorry if I may have confused you but the feeling pain part was a side note.


As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.

That's great that you actively support those around you, and I'm glad that you are happy with your decision. However, that does not give you the right to tell me that my decision was not right for me.

[SWTXBelle]

Oh drat. I didn't get the memo about losing the right to free speech. I really should try and make those constitutional meetings . . .