Abortion for sheepies - Logic and Reason

[ThomasJ]

A good logic argument for pro-choice....

Should a woman be able to choose to have an abortion? (will respond yes ML)

Should a woman be able to choose to not have an abortion (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be legal? (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?

If they respond yes then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they respond no then ask if they are truly pro choice?


If they still are in conflict ask them this.
Is it just for the Federal government to tell all people in this country how they should live? if yes then
What if the Federal Government said that abortion is now illegal, how would that make you feel.
If no then
If they respond no then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they still are in conflict ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old.

[Janet0116]

Me likey

[Xenophage]

This is unnecessary. As a pro-choicer myself, I'm able to support Paul simply because I agree with him on so many other issues that are more important to me. I do not support overturning Roe v Wade, however.

If you're going to talk to a pro-choicer, simply try to stress that he doesn't want *any* federal regulation of the matter one way or the other. He isn't going to make abortion illegal (of course, the result would be that you'd eventually have it illegal in about half the states). After you have that established, turn the discussion to other issues like the economy or the war.

[mrkurtz]

A good logic argument for pro-choice....

Should a woman be able to choose to have an abortion? (will respond yes ML)

Should a woman be able to choose to not have an abortion (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be legal? (will respond yes ML)

Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?

If they respond yes then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they respond no then ask if they are truly pro choice?


If they still are in conflict ask them this.
Is it just for the Federal government to tell all people in this country how they should live? if yes then
What if the Federal Government said that abortion is now illegal, how would that make you feel.
If no then
If they respond no then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they still are in conflict ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old.

Good post.

The major major problem that I've been unable to get by is the inevitable question regarding Roe v Wade. We have to be honest here, both pro-life and pro-choice movements hinge on that court ruling. Bringing up the state's rights issue with abortion is much like suggesting the Civil War was fought over state's rights and not slavery.

It's very touchy and by no means easy to confront. I think Ron Paul's set up on his interview on "The View" is about as close as you can get to speaking with a heavy pro-choice person. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPysYWw34T8 (0:50-1:15)

[FunkBuddha]

My brother is pro-choice and went through this same logic on his own. He agrees with Ron Paul 100% on the abortion issue now even though Paul is pro-life.

My poor brother, he's been a Democrat all his life, now he's chasing rabbits on how the Federal Reserve system works and the viability of the Gold Standard and eliminating the IRS.

Oh, and my dad called me this morning to tell me that him and my mother early voted for Ron Paul in the Tennessee primary.

[ThomasJ]

Ok wtf why did this get moved from grass roots? How is this NOT grass roots

[John E]

The best way to answer this is to simply state the obvious -- Ron Paul wants LESS government involvement in your life.

[libertarianbob01]

"Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?"

A problems here: this presumes stateism. A better reason for the assertion of State's rights is that the Federal Constitution does not confer implied powers to the central government. Roe vs Wade was ruled on the basis of such and thus is bad law.
****************************
"...ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old."

This commits the naturalistic fallacy by assuming something is good. In this case the life of a human fetus. Since good is indefinable, no moral value can be assigned to the life of any organism. Further it presumes that an ought is derivable from an is. But no moral prescription is valid since it is impossible to define an ought in terms of a state of being.
***********************************
The only workable basis of morality is outcome based utilitarianism stemming from the golden rule. But since a fetus is incapable of exchange participation and since it is not a human being (but rather only a potential human being), the golden rule does not apply. Hence, the only reason to keep one's baby is because one wants too.

[ThomasJ]

"Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?"

A problems here: this presumes stateism. A better reason for the assertion of State's rights is that the Federal Constitution does not confer implied powers to the central government. Roe vs Wade was ruled on the basis of such and thus is bad law.
****************************
"...ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old."

This commits the naturalistic fallacy by assuming something is good. In this case the life of a human fetus. Since good is indefinable, no moral value can be assigned to the life of any organism. Further it presumes that an ought is derivable from an is. But no moral prescription is valid since it is impossible to define an ought in terms of a state of being.
***********************************
The only workable basis of morality is outcome based utilitarianism stemming from the golden rule. But since a fetus is incapable of exchange participation and since it is not a human being (but rather only a potential human being), the golden rule does not apply. Hence, the only reason to keep one's baby is because one wants too.

"Since good is indefinable, no moral value can be assigned to the life of any organism."
Good is definable. A=A. What is good is what allows you to profit, to live, and to be happy. Good is value. Good is quality. Good is virtue.
Evil is the sacrifice of your own value for the sake of another.

As for "The only workable basis of morality is outcome based utilitarianism stemming from the golden rule."

Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. In simpler terms, it's for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And interestingly, perhaps like most thoughtful ethical theories, utilitarianism primarily evaluates proposed actions and courses of action, rather than directly evaluating whether a person is virtuous or has good character.

The ends never justify the means if the means implies the denial of reality or your own ability to exist.

According to science the fetus is life. That does not mean it is Human though. A human is achieved after 8 weeks usually as that is when the heart is beating and the brain of the baby is emitting brain waves.

So I say before 8 weeks I would agree with the general premise of your statement but after that point I would not.
A 9 week old child in the womb is human in every sense of the word. Just like a 1 year old child. Yes there is a potential that the 9 week old will be dead before birth but the same is true for the 1 year old before adulthood.

[Sey.Naci]

This is unnecessary. As a pro-choicer myself, I'm able to support Paul simply because I agree with him on so many other issues that are more important to me. I do not support overturning Roe v Wade, however.

If you're going to talk to a pro-choicer, simply try to stress that he doesn't want *any* federal regulation of the matter one way or the other. He isn't going to make abortion illegal (of course, the result would be that you'd eventually have it illegal in about half the states). After you have that established, turn the discussion to other issues like the economy or the war.QFT

[Wendi]

I find it much more useful to convince people that they don't need to agree with every single idea a candidate has if the candidate truly supports the Constitution, which is a hard concept to grasp when we've been so long with the opposite. But I don't agree with Paul on everything. In fact there are a couple of major issues where I disagree with him. But I have always hoped that he would run for President (again), and planned to support him if/when he did long before this campaign was even dreamed of.

[tsetsefly]

This is unnecessary. As a pro-choicer myself, I'm able to support Paul simply because I agree with him on so many other issues that are more important to me. I do not support overturning Roe v Wade, however.

If you're going to talk to a pro-choicer, simply try to stress that he doesn't want *any* federal regulation of the matter one way or the other. He isn't going to make abortion illegal (of course, the result would be that you'd eventually have it illegal in about half the states). After you have that established, turn the discussion to other issues like the economy or the war.

+1, dont try to convince people that they are wrong on one issue(in your opinoin) and they cannot/can, suport paul because of it, just show them how they can agree with paul on so many other issues...

[ThomasJ]

Some will stop at abortion and thats it. Yes you will not convert all but you should be able to convert family and friends.

[nike]

Whether to choose reproductive health care should not be up to the feds, state, or any political body. The only person who should have a say is the person seeking health care. It's flawed logic to say let people choose the health care they want, then say except for women who want to choose reproductive health care.

Keep your laws off MY BODY

[DAFTEK]

Me and my wife are Pro-Choice but in todays times WHO GIVES A CRAP? Our economy is dead, the world hates us, and our future is unknown, for all we know we can get hit by that asteroid tomorrow and all this would be over with. So Vote Ron Paul while you still can :D

[jeffrey7]

most people on both sides of the issue are wrong. The real question is when does a fetus have legal rights, in other words when does it become a person, the moral equivalent of you and me. i am sort of pro-choice, but Roe vs. wade is a terrible decision. It totally ignores this issue instead relying on "privacy" rights and viability of the fetus. Someone else's right to privacy is trumped by my right to live. I don't believe a mass of cells not capable of thought is morally equivalent to a human being. i believe abortion should be legal up to about the end of the first trimester at which point the fetus's brain develops, according to science. Ron Paul's view is based on religion as are most of the pro-life crowd, and they are wrong. This issue will never be resolved until their is a consensus on the issue of God, which will probably never happen given the evolutionary advantage of religion. All this said, I will never associate myself with the pro-choice crowd because they are wrong as well.

[Kade]

Should a woman be able to choose to have an abortion? (will respond yes ML)


Yes.



Should a woman be able to choose to not have an abortion (will respond yes ML)


This is grossly misleading. Question should be, "should woman be forced to have an abortion?", as that is in essence the opposite of this position. No, no woman should be forced to by the state, organization, or person to obtain an abortion. This includes her parents.



Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be legal? (will respond yes ML)


It is not up to the States. Because certain states *cough, Texas, cough* decided to go apeshit with people's liberties, the Hammer of Thor was struck, effectively making abortion a privacy issue and a reproductive rights issue, falling under protection of unenumerated Constitutional rights.

For those who are not familiar, unenumerated rights refer to rights that are considered Natural Rights, even if they are not coded as such. An example of a Natural Right can be many a number of things you take for advantage everyday. In the 1700s, these rights included Representative Taxation, Freedom of the Press, Assembly, Religion, and gun ownership. Some rights have simply been understood, for instance, your right to actually Marry another person. To engage in sexual acts, to have children, ...etc.

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Abortion is considered a natural right. If you want to argue that point, consider it worthy. Otherwise, some people maintain that the value of an unborn child's life is of lesser value than the woman's way of life. The argument is actually a strong one. Without invoking the concepts of a soul, it is also scientifically sound. That most people agree with it makes it an a non-issue of aversion, that only a few people may consider such a right. Pro-lifers are statists, and they mask themselves under the guise of "caring" for an uborn life, regardless of what it really means. It has no influence on their own lives, why are not people marching to the millions of children who die naturally in the womb? 60% or more of all pregnancies end in miscarriages... where is the mourning, where is the fighting? Where is the laws?!

Seriously, pro-lifers, get a life of your own, and stop worrying about others. Ron Paul's stance is flawed.





Should the people of a State be able to choose to have abortions be illegal?


No. Surprise! Because your previous logic was flawed, this inevitably led to the destruction of this flawed question. People do not have the right to vote away other people's rights. Sorry. That is the foundational structure of a republic built on strong freedoms.



If they respond yes then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.


I responded no.



If they respond no then ask if they are truly pro choice?


I am pro-liberty. This sort of logic "gotcha" is classic of the Christian quizzes about whether you are going to hell or not... (http://www.wayofthemaster.com/)

Ooooh my superior logic tricked ya!!! No way to go to heaven except to accept the zombie! Surprise! Get real.



If they still are in conflict ask them this.
Is it just for the Federal government to tell all people in this country how they should live? if yes then
What if the Federal Government said that abortion is now illegal, how would that make you feel.
If no then
If they respond no then they agree with Dr. Paul's stance on abortion and just inform them of such.

If they still are in conflict ask them if it is acceptable to have an abortion with a fetus that is seven months old.

Now you are exposed, because I have shown that you are willing to have the federal government limit a freedom that some people believe in... There is no conflict, only whether you believe in the freedom or not... and on this case, ironically, I happen to side with the pro-lifer in believing that their tax money should not go to supporting abortions. Because some people believe abortion is morally wrong, I believe that their tax money should be exempt completely from supporting the procedure at all. You have a natural right, in my opinion, to avoid supporting through your hard work and effort what you deem murder, (this logic should also be applied to war).

Ron Paul is wrong here. It is not fighting for a freedom, and I showed you why. You do not have a freedom to take away another person's freedom; because people have effectively supported their arguments on a public stage, that an unborn life is of less value, it will, and should, always remain a right. Sorry.

Stop getting angry over what women do with their bodies, you guys sound like a bunch of Saudis and Iranians getting pissed off at the "immorality" of our culture.

We, the people, retain the right to control our bodies, including the right to end a pregnancy that is dependent on the bodies functions. ...And with that, your argument is utterly rejected.

Shove it.

[ThomasJ]

It is not up to the States. Because certain states *cough, Texas, cough* decided to go apeshit with people's liberties, the Hammer of Thor was struck, effectively making abortion a privacy issue and a reproductive rights issue, falling under protection of unenumerated Constitutional rights.

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You forgot the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to regulate any issue that is not expressly forbidden in the constitution is delegated to the States or the people to regulate as they see fit.

A state has the Power to regulate Abortion. This would mean that some states would allow abortion and some would not. This does not "Force" a woman to have a pregnancy or to abort one because that woman is free to leave that state and get an abortion across state lines.

Dr. Paul's stance is that the people of a state should regulate this and most other contentious issues as the state sees fit. This is the Constitutional position.


The intention of this thread is not my personal opinion on abortion, but if you wish to debate me on that I will give you this.

From conception to 8 weeks abortion should be legal in my opinion. After 8 weeks a fetus becomes a Human. It has a Heart Beat, It has Brain waves and it also will move its arms and legs. Is it fully a human? No but neither is an 8 year old.

In my opinion Abortion should be considered murder if performed after 6 months of pregnancy period whether it is because of rape or incest or whatever. If performed before that point but after 8 weeks it should be a fine of one quarter of the Doctor's yearly earnings.

Honestly though my opinion is really irrelevant because this is something for the State to decide.
A state may choose to not regulate at all. It may choose to Outlaw all abortions for any reason. It may do whatever the people of that state want to do. Those in the minority if strongly opposed still retain their rights because they still have the Right of freedom of travel.

So anyways.....

[Kade]

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You forgot the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to regulate any issue that is not expressly forbidden in the constitution is delegated to the States or the people to regulate as they see fit.

A state has the Power to regulate Abortion. This would mean that some states would allow abortion and some would not. This does not "Force" a woman to have a pregnancy or to abort one because that woman is free to leave that state and get an abortion across state lines.

Dr. Paul's stance is that the people of a state should regulate this and most other contentious issues as the state sees fit. This is the Constitutional position.


The intention of this thread is not my personal opinion on abortion, but if you wish to debate me on that I will give you this.

From conception to 8 weeks abortion should be legal in my opinion. After 8 weeks a fetus becomes a Human. It has a Heart Beat, It has Brain waves and it also will move its arms and legs. Is it fully a human? No but neither is an 8 year old.

In my opinion Abortion should be considered murder if performed after 6 months of pregnancy period whether it is because of rape or incest or whatever. If performed before that point but after 8 weeks it should be a fine of one quarter of the Doctor's yearly earnings.

Honestly though my opinion is really irrelevant because this is something for the State to decide.
A state may choose to not regulate at all. It may choose to Outlaw all abortions for any reason. It may do whatever the people of that state want to do. Those in the minority if strongly opposed still retain their rights because they still have the Right of freedom of travel.

So anyways.....


four words: "or to the people."

[RonPaulFTFW]

I don't agree with Paul on abortion and don't need to.

I respect the man.
that's the important part.

His view comes from reasonable consideration of law. Not crazy nutty bible logic.

[Pepsi]

What about One Child Policy's?

[ThomasJ]

four words: "or to the people."


Correct - Or means that either has the right.

If a state (a state being the government representing the populace of that state) decide that they do not want abortion in that state then the state has the power to regulate accordingly.


Just because it says "Or to the people" Does not mean a state cannot constitutionally regulate things not expressly forbidden in it.

[Kade]

Correct - Or means that either has the right.

If a state (a state being the government representing the populace of that state) decide that they do not want abortion in that state then the state has the power to regulate accordingly.


Just because it says "Or to the people" Does not mean a state cannot constitutionally regulate things not expressly forbidden in it.

The people express that they desire reproductive rights, including the right to plan pregnancy, and the right to expel a inviable fetus from a body at an early stage.

That another large percentage of people disagree does nothing to amend the fact that people view it as a right.

[ThomasJ]

Which people? Perhaps the people of Oregon want abortion, Perhaps Mass. Try Georgia and tell me how the "People" feel

[ErikBlack]

There is no group: "the people". Even in the most conservative Bible-thumping states some people will be pro-choice, and they should be allowed to make that choice. If 90% of Georgians don't want to get an abortion then they have the right not to, but they do not have the right to prevent their neighbors from getting an abortion. That is my personal position on the issue. But I realize that I may not have all the answers and my position is not necessarily correct. I know that there are people who care deeply about preventing abortion and saving the lives of unborn babies. So in the spirit of compromise I support Ron Paul's position of allowing the states to outlaw abortion if they so choose under the condition that residents of states not be disallowed from traveling to other states to get abortions. I actually think this is a good thing because it should be a "hassle" to get an abortion. It shouldn't be something you just go do on the weekend and forget about. Its a big decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. As long as people remain polarized on this issue, neither side willing to give an inch, things will stay the way they are, which is that abortion is federally protected. That's fine by me because I support abortion. But pro-lifers need to realize that if they ever want to get their way they are going to have to soften their tone and ease up on the righteous indignation, because right now they are just a small group of loud-mouthed fundamentalists yelling into the wind and nobody wants to hear what they have to say except other members of their own group.

[ThePieSwindler]

Abortion is considered a natural right.

So is health care by some. Does that make it so? The right to life (of all humans) precedes all other rights - without life, liberty and all that follow are nullified.



If you want to argue that point, consider it worthy. Otherwise, some people maintain that the value of an unborn child's life is of lesser value than the woman's way of life. The argument is actually a strong one. Without invoking the concepts of a soul, it is also scientifically sound. That most people agree with it makes it an a non-issue of aversion, that only a few people may consider such a right.

What i will simply argue is that the issue is far more complex and the "coercion vs choice" dichotomy alot of pro-choice people like to bring up, as well as the "life vs death" dichotomy alot of pro-life people like to bring up. I contend that the morality if the situation depends on the definition of life, or at least the point where the human fetus "gains" its natural rights. My first arguement is that the role of government is to defend life, liberty, and property. Some may believe government should have no role at all, perhaps, but let us discuss within the framework of our current situation. If government is indeed supposed to protect life, liberty, and property, than if a human fetus is indeed a human life (id like to see the scientific evidence that it is anything but, at least past a few weeks in). If this is so, should there not be some sort of protection for the lives of the unborn? Of course, it would have to be far more complex and just a law than most, with some room for exceptions. I think state-level laws could be crafted as such, indeed - ones that would factor in the many concerns that abound as related to abortion. Either way, if you believe the role of government is indeed to protect life and liberty, then i hardly see it as an unfounded intiation of force any more abhorrent than anything else the government does to protect life and liberty (whehter it actually does this is a wholly seperate question), so why make an "exception" for abortion? Because it is force against a woman who has made some lifestyle mistakes?

From this point, one may argue that a fetus is not a human with natural rights, but that hardly pertains to the actual debate over whether it is a violation of the liberties of the woman or homicide of the fetus, at least if it assumed as being human - this assumption is important, as many pro-choice people use the arguement that they are personally against abortion and would never commit one, but are for the "right to choose", which is a very inconsistent position to take. Either abortion is a form of homicide (not murder) or it is not. If it is not, it is only becuase a fetus is not deemed "human", but again, that is a seperate issue. When discussing abortion, these terms must be set beforehand, or the arguement will proceed nowhere.




Pro-lifers are statists, and they mask themselves under the guise of "caring" for an uborn life, regardless of what it really means.

Do not presume to speak for all. Ignorant blanket statements like these undermine the grounds of your arguement. Also, i am against all intitations of force, not just from government. It might be "statist" to wish to have a government that protects life, but it is certainly more morally libertarian than believing that abortion is a morally justifiable action, assuming a human fetus does indeed have a claim to 'natural rights' at all. if it, in your view, does not have such rights, than your arguement as constituted is consistent, though not necesarily right (or wrong).




It has no influence on their own lives, why are not people marching to the millions of children who die naturally in the womb? 60% or more of all pregnancies end in miscarriages... where is the mourning, where is the fighting? Where is the laws?!

People being thrown in Guantanamo Bay or tortured has no influence on my own life, so of course, i shouldn't give two shits about what happens to some brown skinned people in a secret prison. Also, that 60% figure was pulled out of your ass - do a search for "percent of pregnancies miscarriage" and youll find it ranged from 10-40%. Before you argue with vitrol and tell people to shove it, at least cite your sources please. And finally, the you are being disingenious by pretending that there is no difference between abortion and miscarriage, just as there is no difference between homicide and accidental death.

[Kade]

Which people? Perhaps the people of Oregon want abortion, Perhaps Mass. Try Georgia and tell me how the "People" feel

I spent most of my life in Cobb County. The people do wish to maintain their reproductive rights, and when confronted with the decision to ban those rights from others, even reasonable pro-lifers concede that it isn't appropriate for the government to go in that direction. Try again.

[Kade]

So is health care by some. Does that make it so? The right to life (of all humans) precedes all other rights - without life, liberty and all that follow are nullified.

A right to life does not assume a right to use another person's body.





What i will simply argue is that the issue is far more complex and the "coercion vs choice" dichotomy alot of pro-choice people like to bring up, as well as the "life vs death" dichotomy alot of pro-life people like to bring up. I contend that the morality if the situation depends on the definition of life, or at least the point where the human fetus "gains" its natural rights. My first arguement is that the role of government is to defend life, liberty, and property. Some may believe government should have no role at all, perhaps, but let us discuss within the framework of our current situation. If government is indeed supposed to protect life, liberty, and property, than if a human fetus is indeed a human life (id like to see the scientific evidence that it is anything but, at least past a few weeks in). If this is so, should there not be some sort of protection for the lives of the unborn? Of course, it would have to be far more complex and just a law than most, with some room for exceptions. I think state-level laws could be crafted as such, indeed - ones that would factor in the many concerns that abound as related to abortion. Either way, if you believe the role of government is indeed to protect life and liberty, then i hardly see it as an unfounded intiation of force any more abhorrent than anything else the government does to protect life and liberty (whehter it actually does this is a wholly seperate question), so why make an "exception" for abortion? Because it is force against a woman who has made some lifestyle mistakes?


I can grant you all of these opinions. Still, they are opinions. It is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. (besides when has anyone on the social conservative side taken with science?) All of these points fail to express the argument that many people do not believe that a fetus has a right to life. Period.



From this point, one may argue that a fetus is not a human with natural rights, but that hardly pertains to the actual debate over whether it is a violation of the liberties of the woman or homicide of the fetus, at least if it assumed as being human - this assumption is important, as many pro-choice people use the arguement that they are personally against abortion and would never commit one, but are for the "right to choose", which is a very inconsistent position to take. Either abortion is a form of homicide (not murder) or it is not. If it is not, it is only becuase a fetus is not deemed "human", but again, that is a seperate issue. When discussing abortion, these terms must be set beforehand, or the arguement will proceed nowhere.


You can't spell to save your life. There is nothing inconsistent with agreeing with a person's retained liberties.





Do not presume to speak for all. Ignorant blanket statements like these undermine the grounds of your arguement. Also, i am against all intitations of force, not just from government. It might be "statist" to wish to have a government that protects life, but it is certainly more morally libertarian than believing that abortion is a morally justifiable action, assuming a human fetus does indeed have a claim to 'natural rights' at all. if it, in your view, does not have such rights, than your arguement as constituted is consistent, though not necesarily right (or wrong).


You are a basket case of blanket statements. For ex: "is far more complex and the "coercion vs choice" dichotomy alot of pro-choice people like to bring up,"

Look, I have no problem with pro-lifers. If you believe a blastocyst is a human life, with equal value as your own, that is your prerogative, and frankly, I believe in your right to not have to support abortion, or get one. My argument still stands. Many people, including myself, do not believe a fetus has a right to life. We do not believe they are fully human. I don't believe the government has a compelling interest in maintaining a position that has so divided people. Just look at how angry you are getting. I wouldn't worry though, the Fed will soon be defining marriage for you, and when life starts for you. And when they do that, a simple matter of time until they can negotiate with themselves when you ought to die, or even if you can die.





People being thrown in Guantanamo Bay or tortured has no influence on my own life, so of course, i shouldn't give two shits about what happens to some brown skinned people in a secret prison. Also, that 60% figure was pulled out of your ass - do a search for "percent of pregnancies miscarriage" and youll find it ranged from 10-40%. Before you argue with vitrol and tell people to shove it, at least cite your sources please. And finally, the you are being disingenious by pretending that there is no difference between abortion and miscarriage, just as there is no difference between homicide and accidental death.

Actually that figure was a rough estimate of the total number of pregnancies that don't come full term, excluding abortions. That also includes the amount of fertilized eggs that simply don't attach. I apologize for the association with miscarriages only. You are also correct that it is disingenuous to consider that they are the same. I am often insensitive about other people's beliefs... I empathize with your belief that a fetus is a human being deserving of the right to life. I disagree. I do not think abortion is murder. Murder implies malicious intent. In many cases, depending on the specific argument used, I can debate a specific reason. Abortion is a complex issue. I believe woman maintain the right to decide their reproductive future. That people secure in their households and families, in different states and regions, and religions, disagree, does not take away the belief that it is still a right that the government should not mess with...

With that said, I'll emphasize this as clearly as I can... I do not believe that a potential baby has a higher value than a woman's body or life.

[Theocrat]

We are dealing with the issue of the sanctity of life, people. Simply put, abortion is murder (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html)!

[Kade]

We are dealing with the issue of the sanctity of life, people. Simply put, abortion is murder (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html)!

So woman maliciously kill human cells on purpose, cells that deserve life because you said so... Yea, that makes sense.

[ThomasJ]

If a doctor kills a baby 1 minute before birth it is called abortion. If a doctor kills the baby after birth it is called murder. If the doctor had not killed the baby 1 minute before birth would it have survived?

If a woman wants to chop off her own arm that is her choice. If a woman wants to cut off a finger that is her choice. If a woman wants to shave off a bit of skin that is her choice.

When a woman has sex and gets pregnant that is not her choice after 8 weeks. That is life. It is life not her own. It is not her body. It is the child's body.
We have to much technology now that can prevent pregnancy to allow the use of abortion as a birth control method. As for the life of the woman I personally feel that should be one of the few times where it is allowed after 8 weeks. My opinion still is of little importance because constitutionally this should be a matter for a State to decide Or for the people.

A human exists in that womb. A human that is functional. A human that will live if you take it out of that womb if you assist it with the things it needed in that womb.

Earliest Surviving baby (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/20/health/main2493294.shtml)

If 90% of Georgia wants to outlaw abortion they have the right to do so. The 10% that does not has the right to move to another state more in line with their views.


As a side note. In the tenth amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This Constitutionally would allow all 50 states to have their own rules on most of the controversial issues of our time.

This is preferable because that will allow people to find a state that most suites their own personal beliefs and that will enhance or detract from their life depending on the belief.

I have no problem with people screwing themselves over with overtly fascist laws. At the same time I do not want those laws imposed on me.

There is no state I can move into that would free me from the regulations of the Federal government.

The minority on any stance is screwed when the Federal government regulates.

So if the Supreme Court over ruled Roe V Wade next week, your view that abortion should be legal would now be screwed. Is that Justice? Is that how free people should live together?



Kade this has been an enjoyable debate. Thanks I deal with a lot of people that cannot debate anything with a reasoned approach. I still do not agree with your stance and I feel that your logic is flawed. On the other hand I do enjoy that you have reason and logic to back up your stance.

[Kade]

If a doctor kills a baby 1 minute before birth it is called abortion. If a doctor kills the baby after birth it is called murder. If the doctor had not killed the baby 1 minute before birth would it have survived?

If a woman wants to chop off her own arm that is her choice. If a woman wants to cut off a finger that is her choice. If a woman wants to shave off a bit of skin that is her choice.

When a woman has sex and gets pregnant that is not her choice after 8 weeks. That is life. It is life not her own. It is not her body. It is the child's body.
We have to much technology now that can prevent pregnancy to allow the use of abortion as a birth control method. As for the life of the woman I personally feel that should be one of the few times where it is allowed after 8 weeks. My opinion still is of little importance because constitutionally this should be a matter for a State to decide Or for the people.

A human exists in that womb. A human that is functional. A human that will live if you take it out of that womb if you assist it with the things it needed in that womb.

Earliest Surviving baby (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/20/health/main2493294.shtml)

If 90% of Georgia wants to outlaw abortion they have the right to do so. The 10% that does not has the right to move to another state more in line with their views.


As a side note. In the tenth amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This Constitutionally would allow all 50 states to have their own rules on most of the controversial issues of our time.

This is preferable because that will allow people to find a state that most suites their own personal beliefs and that will enhance or detract from their life depending on the belief.

I have no problem with people screwing themselves over with overtly fascist laws. At the same time I do not want those laws imposed on me.

There is no state I can move into that would free me from the regulations of the Federal government.

The minority on any stance is screwed when the Federal government regulates.

So if the Supreme Court over ruled Roe V Wade next week, your view that abortion should be legal would now be screwed. Is that Justice? Is that how free people should live together?



Kade this has been an enjoyable debate. Thanks I deal with a lot of people that cannot debate anything with a reasoned approach. I still do not agree with your stance and I feel that your logic is flawed. On the other hand I do enjoy that you have reason and logic to back up your stance.

What the law calls it, I care not. The law is a tool for ideologues to abuse. There are natural rights. I believe personally that at the point of viability, abortion should be reconsidered. 22 weeks is 5.5 months. If that is the earliest, than let that be the cutoff. In my arguments, I am referring to a person discovering that they have become pregnant, and deciding at that moment to terminate the pregnancy. Most women should know by 3 months... Late term abortions are debatable, and I'm open to opposing arguments on either side. I do not believe in a soul, I've seen unborn fetuses, I am not impressed with arguments that these fetuses "deserve" a right to life, being mostly inanimate, without reason, without pain, and absolutely dependent on the body of the woman.

That said, I'm also willing to listen to arguments about state rights. Overturning Roe v. Wade allows for such absurd amendments to the Constitution that would define life... again, it is seen as a natural right by many people... you disagree with that right, which is your prerogative. People have disagreed with many people's rights throughout time. Your beliefs don't change a thing. We both know that you have no vested interest in a woman who decides to get an abortion. You should have no say. I'm not saying that you shouldn't go out and protest on behalf of potential babies all you want, but isn't there much more disturbing and outrageous things going on in the world... like perhaps, the suffering of people who have emotions, and feelings, and real life experiences....

Just a thought.

I know Ron Paul's stance on the matter. Unfortunately many people here refuse to admit obvious things.. for example, as an OB-GYN Ron Paul is in a less than 10% minority of the profession that is pro-life.

I trust a woman's biology. Nature teaches us that woman instinctively know if they are capable of raising a healthy child. Other animals simply abandon or eat their young if they cannot provide. As a man, what right do I have to even consider such a thing, I am not the owner of their bodies. If there were an outstanding number of woman trying to ban masturbating, we would probably be up in arms, women don't tend to understand a man's natural desire for sexual gratification, (although that can be disputed)... my point is, I'm not giving birth anytime soon, how can I possibly allow a law that will force woman to use their bodies to effect incubate a potential human child, simply because I happen to believe that potential child is a full human life with a right to life... even if it was everything you say it is, a human does not have the right to borrow another human against their will to live off them for 9 months. That is a charity. We do not force charity in this country, nor should we.... Abortion does kill a potential human. No doubt about it. But it is not the intention of the mother to kill a life, or deprive a human of life, it deprives them the use of her body. The deprivation will kill the fetus. You cannot by law force a woman to not be allowed to receive the best possible medical procedure to do so... time and history have taught us, women WILL always have abortions, ALWAYS. Nothing changes that.... outlawing it is not going to change it. Woman know when they are ready to be mothers. If the current culture were not so messed up, there would be early sex education and preventive measures, and far less abortions. However, the same group advocating that they are pro-life, also seems to advocate a lack of knowledge on the subject, which has proven to lead to unprotected sex and embarrassment.

Most abortions are done by Christians. Most are done by evangelical Christians. Most are not reported to their parents. Do the math.

Again, the value of a woman's body, life and way of life and experience is greater than the value of a potential human. This is unshakable in it's sheer power of clarity.

[ThomasJ]

We both know that you have no vested interest in a woman who decides to get an abortion. You should have no say.

So if I kill my 2 year old child. You have no vested interest in that? Should the government be able to try me for murder?


a human does not have the right to borrow another human against their will to live off them for 9 months.

With the exception of rape a woman knows full well what the possibilities of having sex are. How is that against their will.

Should investors not be able to invest because it is possible they could loose or gain money?

Should a person not be able to drive a car because it is possible they could die?


Most abortions are done by Christians. Most are done by evangelical Christians. Most are not reported to their parents. Do the math

I would love to see some statistics on that one.


Again, the value of a woman's body, life and way of life and experience is greater than the value of a potential human. This is unshakable in it's sheer power of clarity.

This is the crux of our disagreement. I believe if someone has sex willingly and gets pregnant and lets the fetus mature into a baby (8 weeks or more) then they should have the baby, period.
They can give it up for adoption or whatever. They got themselves into the problem by their own choice. They have to take personal responsibility and deal with it.

Most women will know that they are pregnant after 5 weeks max. This is your standard late period sign. This does not work on all women as some have irregular period frequency. Most should know by then though. In reality I knew that my wife was pregnant before she knew. I could see the signs long before she examined her own behavior.

[Theocrat]

So woman maliciously kill human cells on purpose, cells that deserve life because you said so... Yea, that makes sense.

I never said nor implied that killing human cells is murder. No, I stated that abortion is murder, which means it's an unlawful killing of a human being, an that's what a fetus is. It has God-given and legal rights to life, period. Fetal homicide laws attest to this, for instance. So, your straw man argument is useless in that I never made a claim of killing human cells--that's your assumption of what a fetus is.

With all due respect, Kade, if you can look at the pictures on the link I posted and conclude that they are just human cells, then you are just blind. Any person can tell that those aborted fetuses are human persons. Shame on you.

[ThomasJ]

There is no need for - "Shame on you"

That does not enable debate that shuts it down.

[Kade]

I never said nor implied that killing human cells is murder. No, I stated that abortion is murder, which means it's an unlawful killing of a human being, an that's what a fetus is. It has God-given and legal rights to life, period. Fetal homicide laws attest to this, for instance. So, your straw man argument is useless in that I never made a claim of killing human cells--that's your assumption of what a fetus is.

With all due respect, Kade, if you can look at the pictures on the link I posted and conclude that they are just human cells, then you are just blind. Any person can tell that those aborted fetuses are human persons. Shame on you.

Murder is malicious homocide. Abortion is not malicious. Abortion expulsion of a fetus from a woman's body. It does kill the fetus. I've looked at the pictures, many, many times. I'm from the deep south. We had people like you standing on the corners of our high school all year. I'm not going to budge. God-given rights once included the right to own slaves.

While I draw breath, the state will not force a woman to carry full term a pregnancy, I don't care how infuriated it makes you or people like you. I don't care how much you think you are fighting for someone's rights. You are only fighting for what you perceive as evil and malicious. I don't think you have considered all the facts, nor have you considered the reasons why people like me are pro-choice.

You may think we are uninformed. I am not heartless. I've been called many things on these boards.

I've been called too analytical, yet blind. I've been called a socialist yet too anti-government. I've been called heartless, and a bleeding heart liberal.

I'm many things. Cold and emotionless is not one of them. I can add nothing more in this debate because I believe I made a very clear argument. Step back, and think about why someone like me, and others supports abortion as a humane solution. Consider that we are human too, and our feelings and emotions on the matter should not just be summarily dismissed. I've thought about the debate most of my life. I worked my way through school and through college, a private Catholic University, where, despite the best efforts of the administration, a large minority of us were pro-choice leaning. There is a reason why the most educated among us in America choose this stance. Consider these reasons, at the very least, tread lightly on the soil you seek to fertilize. Your protection of fetuses does not transcend beyond picket lines... people consider it a natural right, a fundamental right, to have privacy and medically available options for parenting. You suggest this right should be taken, by force, by the very tool you should be fighting against.


Pregnancy and parenting is not a punishment to be enacted on someone. I believe in planned parenting. I believe children brought up in the best possible environment gives us a better society.

An adoption is not an answer for some people. They want their children to themselves.

Just because your farm life was happy and fruitful, does not mean that every single new mom can find a way to support a child. If you did think about it, you would come to some conclusion on the quality of life of that child and consider that instead of a selfish desire to save the life of a cluster of cells.


If you think abortion is wrong, go, convince a desperate young woman to stop and rethink what she is doing. I ask that you also help her. Don't preach, don't wag your finger at her for making the mistake of having sex. (Because we all know that isn't a natural right). Just help. I'll prevent abortions my way, with sex education, and disease and pregnancy prevention techniques, and you can talk them out of it... let's leave the government out of this.

[Indy Vidual]

"Abortion for sheepies - Logic and Reason"

Female sheep have the right to decide for themselves. :rolleyes:

[ThomasJ]

The sheepies was to imply a good debate that a person could have with Pro-choice that would tell them that Dr. Paul is not Pro choice or Pro life. He is Pro states rights which means both Pro Life and Pro choice can profit.

A sheep is an un-awakened member of society that has not become aware of the insanity that is collectivism.

[JenaS62]

Me and my wife are Pro-Choice but in todays times WHO GIVES A CRAP? Our economy is dead, the world hates us, and our future is unknown, for all we know we can get hit by that asteroid tomorrow and all this would be over with. So Vote Ron Paul while you still can :D



You know what? I totally agree with you. Who gives a crap? I lean more towards prolife but I fully understand that some women will choose an abortion and there is a not a damn thing we can do about it. If there is no legalized abortion - women who want abortions will simply return to back alley abortions and that's not cool. With everything else going on in this world - this is just not high on the list of my priorities right now. I have 3 teenage sons and keeping them from getting drafted is my 1st priority right now - followed closely by the economy and immigration. Those are the 3 things that lured me to Ron Paul and that is why I am going to vote for him tomorrow.