quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
I do think abortion should be legal, and women have a right to it.

If you want to murder the unborn, just do us all a favor and call it what it is, murder. Whether you think you're murdering a person or not, is irrelevant. Of course abortion is murder.

Should women also have a right to murder their husbands? For many of the same reasons?
They are inconvenient. They are a drain on the finances. They use my body.

Chellim1, if you'd actually like to participate in a discussion, do me the courtesy of addressing my entire post. Not editing it and making a straw man to poke at.

If a moral argument is the only one that matters, then the left have a strong one against firearms. We know this isn't true, because the world is more complex. So with abortion.

We all have ideas of which kind of state sponsored murder we approve of. We should live our lives accordingly and let others do so.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Ignoring the moral issue (which can and has been argued to death.) Let's look at the fiscal issues.

If a poor woman wants and abortion, and can't get it, what are the chances that the resulting kid won't be social services dependent for likely their entire lives? Paying for the abortion may be the lowest cost option available in terms of spending tax money in this situation.

That has nothing to do with this thread/article.

There was zero mention of means testing, this is a combination of state funded and forcing insurance companies to cover them with no out of pocket expenses.

I don't want to pay for the millionaire's daughter or young couple with a job to get an abortion. If you want an abortion pay for it your fucking self. If you are honestly indigent I could understand some kind of program for those people. Not for those with the means to pay for it themselves or ability to borrow the money.

I am 100% against abortion, but if someone wants to murder their child and is too irresponsible to raise a child, then I'll have to learn to not get worked up about it. I absolutely refuse to pay for zero cost abortion. I won't say free because there is no one donating these abortions. People's money is being stolen to pay for them.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Banning abortion makes exactly as much sense as banning "assault weapons." It is a moral pat on the back, a solution which doesn't solve the problem it proports to.

Leftists want to ban guns, because no one needs them and only monsters would engage in that kind of violence. The Right wants to ban abortions because no one needs them, and only monsters would engage in that kind of violence. If the idiots on the left would knock it off pushing gun bans, I'd say the right needs to knock it off with abortion bans.

Arc,

I enjoy your perspective on things of this nature, but you must admit, there is more at work here than banning guns or abortions.

Somewhere, somehow, humans have a conscience, or some built in principle, that tells them that a human harming another human is wrong.

Many deny this voice inside the back of their head, mostly do to their own selfish desires, yet it remains.

It's rather intuitive, humans should not harm their fellow man. This would include harm caused by a weapon, or by abortion.

But then again, this is reality, and people do not obey the simple principles God has sewn into their hearts and souls.

H&K-Guy

ETA: I just saw your displeasure at chellim1 of only partially quoting you. My apologies as that is what I have just done. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Chellim1, if you'd actually like to participate in a discussion, do me the courtesy of addressing my entire post. Not editing it and making a straw man to poke at.

That isn't a straw man argument. A straw man is falsely assigning a position to your opponent, and then refuting that argument, not the true argument. A straw man is not a legitimate argument.

That is a reductio ad absurdum argument, which attempts to show the position held by your opponent inevitably leads to a absurd result. This can be a legitimate arguing technique.

And, as always, the anti-abortion folks continue to offer "a fetus is a human" as the argument, instead of the conclusion. To convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, the argument you offer has to convince them that a fetus is, in fact, a human.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Chellim1, if you'd actually like to participate in a discussion, do me the courtesy of addressing my entire post. Not editing it and making a straw man to poke at.

That isn't a straw man argument. A straw man is falsely assigning a position to your opponent, and then refuting that argument, not the true argument. A straw man is not a legitimate argument.

That is a reductio ad absurdum argument, which attempts to show the position held by your opponent inevitably leads to a absurd result. This can be a legitimate arguing technique.

And, as always, the anti-abortion folks continue to offer "a fetus is a human" as the argument, instead of the conclusion. To convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, the argument you offer has to convince them that a fetus is, in fact, a human.

What makes that fetus a human? The desires/whim/morals of the person carrying it? I should hope not! A dear friend's wife had terrible complications in her pregnancy and delivered at approximately 20 weeks, half-way thru a normal pregnancy. The fetus/baby (once it crossed the end-zone line I guess for a touchdown) spent months in NICU, had many surgeries, etc. Lucy is now a beautiful, healthy, vibrant 10 year old girl. At 20 weeks, she could have been slaughtered in the womb without many people giving it a second thought. Why? What's the difference? Because Adam and his wife wanted her? How can extremely intelligent people close their minds to the fact that life is life, whether you want it to be or not? I have read many of your posts and have great respect for your mind, logic, and discussion. But with all due respect, the greatest people are still wrong sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Banning abortion makes exactly as much sense as banning "assault weapons." It is a moral pat on the back, a solution which doesn't solve the problem it proports to.

I enjoy your perspective on things of this nature, but you must admit, there is more at work here than banning guns or abortions.

Somewhere, somehow, humans have a conscience, or some built in principle, that tells them that a human harming another human is wrong.

Many deny this voice inside the back of their head, mostly do to their own selfish desires, yet it remains.

It's rather intuitive, humans should not harm their fellow man. This would include harm caused by a weapon, or by abortion.

But then again, this is reality, and people do not obey the simple principles God has sewn into their hearts.

H&K-Guy

ETA: I just saw your displeasure at chellim1 of only partially quoting you. My apologies as that is what I have done. Sorry.

What he did and what you did aren't the same.

Of course abortion is a complex issue, but the fact is, that it will persist regardless of how much it is legislated against. What causes someone to seek an abortion has a number of roots, and not all are simply an unwanted child. Also, few who have abortions are thrilled to do it, and suffer no guilt afterward.

For example, I have friends from college who have tried many times to conceive. They'd really like a child of their own. They were forced to abort due to the development of the fetus meaning its life would have been short, painful, and attached to machines at the hospital.

Bans are an awful policy tool, one size does not fit all. The person who seeks abortion because they simply don't want the child, will find a way. Historically, the human race has found all manor of ways to get rid of unwanted children. Throwing them from hilltops, simply leaving them out to starve, depends on the culture.

It's not any fun, and it doesn't go away because you ban it. Women or girls who have unwanted pregnancies will either improvise that abortion in some manor, or give the child up to be a ward of the state.

Does the state raising children on the taxpayers dime sound like a good idea? We know how good government is at doing things. How good is the life that child no one wants guaranteed?

Abortions are bad. They will occur, even when they are banned. Just like the effect on crime of banning guns.

The solution to abortion, is sex education and contraception. Not simply saying "Abortion is bad because killing babies is wrong." The best thing to do is not get to where you feel you need an abortion. Abstinence alone has shown to be a poor strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
That isn't a straw man argument. A straw man is falsely assigning a position to your opponent, and then refuting that argument, not the true argument. A straw man is not a legitimate argument.

That is a reductio ad absurdum argument, which attempts to show the position held by your opponent inevitably leads to a absurd result. This can be a legitimate arguing technique.

I wasn't arguing that woman can murder their husbands, so really it's some of both and whicheither, don't you think? An absurdly reduced straw man?

The moral argument at the heart of abortion, and gun control, is that you shouldn't kill people and if we remove the means of doing it, the problem is solved. This is demonstrably false in both cases.

Arc,

I'm hard pressed to find any argument with your last post. Abortion, in one form or another, is going to persist as long as we live in an evil world.

I agree with you that it is a complex issue and there is not a broad stroke that covers all scenarios.

The only minor issue I find myself disagreeing with you is that I truly believe "Abortion is bad because killing babies is wrong."

I know, I live in my own little world, outside of reality, when it comes to this. But this is my fantasy, my self-delusion, so let me have it.

H&K-Guy

Abort all the liberals, fine with me

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
The only minor issue I find myself disagreeing with you is that I truly believe "Abortion is bad because killing babies is wrong."

I know, I live in my own little world, outside of reality, when it comes to this. But this is my fantasy, so let me have it.

I personally don't support abortion, but I see why it is necessary. In that way, I'm also going with how I feel other people should act, which is to live my life and let others live theirs. If I thought that there was a way to actually eliminate something like abortion, I'd be in favor. Such a thing simply doesn't exist, much like a homicide rate of 0% from banning firearms.

We tried outlawing murder, how's that working out?

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
The only minor issue I find myself disagreeing with you is that I truly believe "Abortion is bad because killing babies is wrong."

I know, I live in my own little world, outside of reality, when it comes to this. But this is my fantasy, so let me have it.

I personally don't support abortion, but I see why it is necessary. In that way, I'm also going with how I feel other people should act, which is to live my life and let others live theirs. If I thought that there was a way to actually eliminate something like abortion, I'd be in favor. Such a thing simply doesn't exist, much like a homicide rate of 0% from banning firearms.

We tried outlawing murder, how's that working out?

The most elegant truths are usually the simplest. Well played.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Chellim1, if you'd actually like to participate in a discussion, do me the courtesy of addressing my entire post. Not editing it and making a straw man to poke at.

That isn't a straw man argument. A straw man is falsely assigning a position to your opponent, and then refuting that argument, not the true argument. A straw man is not a legitimate argument.

That is a reductio ad absurdum argument, which attempts to show the position held by your opponent inevitably leads to a absurd result. This can be a legitimate arguing technique.

And, as always, the anti-abortion folks continue to offer "a fetus is a human" as the argument, instead of the conclusion. To convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, the argument you offer has to convince them that a fetus is, in fact, a human.

What makes that fetus a human? The desires/whim/morals of the person carrying it? I should hope not! A dear friend's wife had terrible complications in her pregnancy and delivered at approximately 20 weeks, half-way thru a normal pregnancy. The fetus/baby (once it crossed the end-zone line I guess for a touchdown) spent months in NICU, had many surgeries, etc. Lucy is now a beautiful, healthy, vibrant 10 year old girl. At 20 weeks, she could have been slaughtered in the womb without many people giving it a second thought. Why? What's the difference? Because Adam and his wife wanted her? How can extremely intelligent people close their minds to the fact that life is life, whether you want it to be or not? I have read many of your posts and have great respect for your mind, logic, and discussion. But with all due respect, the greatest people are still wrong sometimes.

I don't mind being wrong. I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again.

But I am not arguing for abortion here.

But I would like to hear actual arguments for or against. I don't mean to be stubborn, but "life is life" is not the argument for why a fetus is a life the same as an already born person is, it is just your conclusion.

And a heart-wrenching personal anecdote is also not an argument.

Give me the reason, not the conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

I wasn't arguing that woman can murder their husbands, so really it's some of both and whicheither, don't you think? An absurdly reduced straw man?

Maybe a bit of both. I read him to say that your rule could lead to allowing murder, which I think is a little more reductio ad absurdum, but it did also deflect your argument a little, making it at least a little straw mannish.

Given what I believe to be the consequences of selfishly ending life, I actually feel more sorry for those who do it than the victims of it.

jhe888,

If the next Mars expedition found a few microbes living in some distant, dusty, dried out sea bed, everyone would gather together in victory in the knowledge that we are not alone in the universe and life on other planets is a reality.

Those same people look at an actual live unborn child and argue there is no life there.

I fail to see how this makes sense to you. (OK, so I borrowed this argumentation from the straw man post. Shameless, I know).

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Maybe a bit of both. I read him to say that your rule could lead to allowing murder, which I think is a little more reductio ad absurdum, but it did also deflect your argument a little, making it at least a little straw mannish.

Reductio Ad Strawman.

Cologne.

Calvin Klein.

Chiseled man in silhouette with spotlight on tighty whiteys.

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
The only minor issue I find myself disagreeing with you is that I truly believe "Abortion is bad because killing babies is wrong."

I know, I live in my own little world, outside of reality, when it comes to this. But this is my fantasy, so let me have it.

I personally don't support abortion, but I see why it is necessary. In that way, I'm also going with how I feel other people should act, which is to live my life and let others live theirs. If I thought that there was a way to actually eliminate something like abortion, I'd be in favor. Such a thing simply doesn't exist, much like a homicide rate of 0% from banning firearms.

We tried outlawing murder, how's that working out?

The most elegant truths are usually the simplest. Well played.

H&K-Guy

What you're saying is that since people engage in the act of [abortion/murder] whether or not there is a law against it, then we should NOT have a law against [abortion/murder].

That, clearly, is absurd. It is nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
The only minor issue I find myself disagreeing with you is that I truly believe "Abortion is bad because killing babies is wrong."

I know, I live in my own little world, outside of reality, when it comes to this. But this is my fantasy, so let me have it.

I personally don't support abortion, but I see why it is necessary. In that way, I'm also going with how I feel other people should act, which is to live my life and let others live theirs. If I thought that there was a way to actually eliminate something like abortion, I'd be in favor. Such a thing simply doesn't exist, much like a homicide rate of 0% from banning firearms.

We tried outlawing murder, how's that working out?

The most elegant truths are usually the simplest. Well played.

H&K-Guy

What you're saying is that since people engage in the act of [abortion/murder] whether or not there is a law against it, then we should NOT have a law against [abortion/murder].

That, clearly, is absurd. It is nonsense.

Sap,

Why you all up in my grill, dawg? I ain’t here to front, 'aight? I don’t need you all up in my bid’ness, yo’.

Nobody argued that there should or should not be a law against abortion/murder the way you just did. That is not the problem. Arc was just explaining that laws outlawing murder don't work out.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Chellim1, if you'd actually like to participate in a discussion, do me the courtesy of addressing my entire post. Not editing it and making a straw man to poke at.

That isn't a straw man argument. A straw man is falsely assigning a position to your opponent, and then refuting that argument, not the true argument. A straw man is not a legitimate argument.

That is a reductio ad absurdum argument, which attempts to show the position held by your opponent inevitably leads to a absurd result. This can be a legitimate arguing technique.

And, as always, the anti-abortion folks continue to offer "a fetus is a human" as the argument, instead of the conclusion. To convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, the argument you offer has to convince them that a fetus is, in fact, a human.

What makes that fetus a human? The desires/whim/morals of the person carrying it? I should hope not! A dear friend's wife had terrible complications in her pregnancy and delivered at approximately 20 weeks, half-way thru a normal pregnancy. The fetus/baby (once it crossed the end-zone line I guess for a touchdown) spent months in NICU, had many surgeries, etc. Lucy is now a beautiful, healthy, vibrant 10 year old girl. At 20 weeks, she could have been slaughtered in the womb without many people giving it a second thought. Why? What's the difference? Because Adam and his wife wanted her? How can extremely intelligent people close their minds to the fact that life is life, whether you want it to be or not? I have read many of your posts and have great respect for your mind, logic, and discussion. But with all due respect, the greatest people are still wrong sometimes.

I don't mind being wrong. I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again.

But I am not arguing for abortion here.

But I would like to hear actual arguments for or against. I don't mean to be stubborn, but "life is life" is not the argument for why a fetus is a life the same as an already born person is, it is just your conclusion.

And a heart-wrenching personal anecdote is also not an argument.

Give me the reason, not the conclusion.

I thought that illustrating, thru a real situation, that a baby turned into a normal human being outside of its mother's womb did that. It wasn't intended to be a "heart-wrenching personal anecdote" or some other sort of emotional manipulation, I'm not sure why trying to characterize it as that is useful.

And why does the burden of proof fall to the pro-life side? What's the concrete, irrefutable proof to the contrary? Since millions of lives have hung in the balance (and lost, died), I'd think that erring on the side of caution would be fair. Please don't let a bad decision by a court 40-some odd years ago suffice as proof. I think we all agree, they've botched many decisions over the years.