What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

A majority OPINION cannot change the nature of what IS. Schneekugel is using a fallacious tactic to make her case. I'm pointing out the obvious weakness of it.

Compromise when it concerns the destruction of human life is absurd. Are you really prepared to destroy SOME lives (women seeking abortions, abortionists) in order to destroy SOME other lives (the unborn)? Perhaps that is a bit extreme, but suppose SOME people really did feel that way. I don't. But some people really do. And those people have done some horrible things to make their point. Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight. So if we're really going to bring compromise to the table, we have to let evil people like them get their way SOME of the time while women asking for abortions and abortionists performing abortions get their way SOME of the time. If, for the sake of argument, that actually happened (I doubt it will), what you end up with is SOME abortion clinics will get bombed, which won't make abortion clinic bombers or abortionists happy; SOME abortions will continue to be carried out, which won't make pro-lifers happy; and only a FEW women seeking abortion will actually get one, which won't make the pro-infanticide crowd happy.

NOBODY wins at true compromise. It's absurd. And even if you ignore the terrorists and extremists and only acknowledge law-abiding citizens, ONE LIFE unjustly destroyed will still be unacceptable for the pro-life crowd. The pro-infanticide crowd isn't willing to move towards the middle; why should the pro-life group be expected to do the same?

There really is no compromise here. What there IS, on the other hand, is a demand on one side (pro-abortion) that the other side (pro-life) change their position to a more moderate stance--which means allowing abortions that they find objectionable. A true compromise in this case is lose-lose. What is being demanded is win-lose.

And I disagree that the majority actually favors your position. That majority doesn't exist everywhere. Where I live the majority is anti-abortion. Mississippi is well-known for pushing back against outsiders telling us what to do or what to believe, which is largely why I enjoy living here. The voters here rejected an initiative to define personhood because: 1) the language was too vague, and 2) we don't like it when people who have no connection to us and don't even know us try to influence our law and politics. If compromise legislation had been introduced in the state house and senate, a personhood law likely would have passed. And, incidentally, the majority was only 55%. It wasn't 55% who were pro-abortion; it was 55% who wanted to send the message that we can make up our own minds, thank you.

[Note: The main issue that killed it with the voters was that by defining personhood the way they were trying to, something as simple as a miscarriage could be legally seen as involuntary manslaughter. That was the fear, anyway, whether it would have actually happened or not, and I think as emotionally-driven as the debate was here on both sides of the argument, what happened was probably for the best. It was a piss-poor attempt at legislation. It didn't break my heart simply that the measure failed at the polls. It broke my heart that a bunch of IDIOTS had pro-abortion by the balls and failed to address something as important as the implications of miscarriage to this whole debate.]

On the other hand, what the majority of people in Mississippi HAVE done is, while not overturning Roe v. Wade/making abortion illegal outright, made abortion in the state difficult to the point of being virtually impossible. There is only one abortion clinic in the state. I THINK there's a law requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers, which pretty much is the final nail in the coffin for that clinic since no admitting OB in the state really wants to risk their reputation for that, nor are hospitals interested in protestors gathering outside. If you want to argue that the majority actually favors abortion and therefore that makes it right, then you're going to have to explain why "abortion rights" in Mississippi are slowly coming to a close since, after all, that's the will of the majority. The only way our abortion clinic is managing to stay alive is through a federal court feeding tube, ONE person's opinion rather than the will of the majority.

And that's just Mississippi; there are efforts elsewhere to severely restrict or eliminate abortion which favor majority opinion.

And that's just the US. What about the Dominican Republic? Chile? Malta? Nicaragua? El Salvador? If you lived in Mississippi or one of these countries, or even Iran, Philippines, Andorra, Antigua, Madagascar, Ireland, Egypt, Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, and Lebanon in which abortion is explicitly allowed to save a woman's life, would you change your opinion? Do you really make up your mind based on what the majority believes or on what is currently law?

Sure, we'll disagree on our respective views of baby-killing 'til the cows come home and pick it right back up tomorrow. But you strike me as reasonably intelligent enough to disagree based on your own reasons, not what "the law" or "the majority" tell you to believe. I don't care about "what everyone else" thinks or what "the law" says. I care about what is RIGHT, and if we want to go with "the majority," then we all have to concede that "everyone," meaning "the majority" (not to ignore those few on this forum who have stated they don't value human life), seem to believe that human life is worth protecting. I fail to see what distinguishes one from the other. If murder is wrong, it is wrong for all. No "majority" or "law" can change that.

So can we PLEASE move on without committing silly red herring fallacies?

It's not really a compromise. Babies still get killed. You can't "kinda" get an abortion and still have a baby "kinda" get to live.

It's not a compromise to force women to go through unwanted pregnancies either.

The only thing I can think of that could make everyone happy is to invent a way to take a fetus out of the mother and transfer it to another person or an artificial womb. Then no one has to go through an unwanted pregnancy and there is no abortion. (assuming this is made available to everyone and there are people to take the unwanted fetuses)

If you think abortion is "killing babies," then you're free not to get one.

People who don't think abortion is "killing babies" are free to get one, or not get one, as circumstances dictate.

If you think killing a toddler is murder, then you're free not to kill toddlers.

People who don't think killing a toddler is murder are free to kill toddlers, or not to kill toddlers, as circumstances dictate.

You always make posts like that that make no sense.

There is no opinion in that. Killing toddlers is illegal. Killing toddlers is killing someone already born and sentient. Killing toddlers is unnecessary because you can give them away.

Abortion is not murder (in my opinion) because the fetus is not a person that is already born and can't live if it is removed from the mother's body.

If someone really wanted to end abortion the solution is to create a strong culture of adoption. Get all the christers to adopt the unwanted kids. Pass laws and programs to promote it. Maybe attach some tax advantage. Create an adoption center outside of every abortion provider that can provide both information and direct assistance. Because the legality of abortion can go back and forth at any time. It's a forever war. If you oppose it it's better to provide a more attractive alternative. And that alternative continues to work whether abortion is legal or not. Even if pro-lifers succeed in making it illegal for a time the practice will continue and we will also need more adoption resources. Child abandonment will rise. You can't mandate the ability to provide for kids or love them.

But it's alot easier to curse people and carry signs around.

AngelRho, words like 'murder' and 'baby' have meanings. Meanings are set by consensus: by majority opinion. IIrc, "egregious" used to mean that something was great and "awesome" used to mean that something was terrible; their meanings have changed, based on popular opinion and popular usage.

When I say that abortion is not 'murder' and that a zef is not a 'baby,' I'm discussing the definitions of those words, based on popular usage, not arguing about how bad abortion is or how valuable a zef is.

Although meanings can change over time, words are just meaningless collections of sound without widely accepted meanings.

If you think killing a fruit fly is murder, then you're free not to kill fruit flies.

People who don't think killing a fruit fly is murder are free to kill fruit flies, or not to kill fruit flies, as circumstances dictate.


If you get to replace fetuses with toddlers then I get to do the same with fruit flies.

So by your own words you define yourself as nothing more than meaningless sound??? Why should anyone even listen to you???

That would mean people who have sex when they aren't ready to have children get to pass their genes on to the next generation anyway, at the expense of those you call "christers", who could instead be raising children of their own. I can see why the latter may not like this "solution".

Good point, but it also speaks negatively of us who are called to show compassion and mercy. A foster care system that made sure that kids are actually cared for and not relegated to an existence of neglect, sexual abuse, and future of homelessness would be a good start. I don't think it's right to punish children because of their genes, and your response has a eugenic tinge to it that Christians will likely find unappealing. Simon_says does have a point, I have to admit.

I'm not averse to the adoption idea, but there is a danger if we place the full burden on Christians. You cannot discriminate based on faith, nor can the government intrude into religious freedom. A mandate for Christians to adopt unwanted children would constitute such discrimination. In regards to the other problem, I've known of at least one "children's village" run by a statewide church association that got regulated to death because the kids it cared for had to participate in religious programs. Normally parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit, including matters of religion. A mandate to place unwanted babies with specifically Christian homes, while not in and of itself a bad thing, might be seen as the state promoting a religion. You'd basically place these kids in Christian homes and then tell adoptive parents they couldn't give those children a Christian upbringing. I think something like that could be done, but it would have to be approached with great care to make sure that the rights of Christians and adopted kids would be respected.

Like I said, I don't take issue with adopting kids, but we have to be fair. People who engage in bad behavior shouldn't be deprived of consequences for their actions, and the children that result from bad decisions don't deserve to be punished either. The ideal solution, I think, is to hold parents accountable for their actions and the children that result and make adoption an option in extraordinary circumstances.

Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we could get past the erroneous idea that somehow we will die if we can't have sex on demand.

Uh... What? I'm talking about words. My name is a word - a set of sounds that has no meaning other than that ascribed to it by the people who know me, but my name is not 'me.' The only reason my name has meaning is because people agree that it applies to me.

Does that help?

Wrt. adoptions, leave religion out of it and simply require pro-choice folks to adopt regardless of philosophy? Want to prevent a woman from aborting a zef with a birth defect? Adopt a kid with a birth defect.