You’ve never heard of Everquest or World of Warcraft? Ok then. Whatever.

Why do you not trust President Bush to make decisions about what to do in Iraq?

Because Iraq doesn’t belong to him. A woman’s body does belong to herself.

Prove that a fetus is not a baby.

Sorry, but the burdan of proof is always on the positive. Answer my question, and I will be willing to argue against it.

“Prove that a fetus is not a baby.”

It isn’t by the very definition of the two words. I would suggest you look them, but that kind of information would hurt your brain.

By the way, the bible doesn’t say abortion is murder. In fact, killing your kids is actually considered appropriate punishment for swearing.

Maybe it’s time you realized the bible is not a good book, but filled with evil.

Prove that a fetus is a baby
Prove that a fetus is not a baby.

I said the FFL were not affiliated with a religious organization. You didn’t say they were. Does the word “for” bother you, too?

If you don’t believe me, then the other two points don’t matter.

But I have addressed those two points already in this very thread. Go re - read them.

I don’t even like Star Trek. If you must know, I crated this name for an MMORPG, and have been using it as my handle since.

he doesn’t even hint that they are affiliated with any Christian denomination.

No, but I’m just pointing out that “Feminists for Life” aren’t exactly feminist.

Here’s the hard part for guys like you: We just want the baby to live. That’s all. No sexism, no oppression, no religious conversion.

Just. Leave. The. Baby. Alone.

A few things:

1. Knowing you, I don’t believe you.

2. Prove that a fetus is a baby.

3. If you’re not a sexist, then why do you not trust women to make decisions about what to do with their own body.

See, zython of Vulcan, or whoever you are, many religious folks are opposed to abortion, but many people are opposed to abortion for other than religious.

Here’s the hard part for guys like you: We just want the baby to live. That’s all. No sexism, no oppression, no religious conversion.

Just. Leave. The. Baby. Alone.

Hate to break this to you, bud, but “Feminists” for “Life” are anything but.

My use of the qualifier, “If I had the power” was a recognition of the idea that some people view a women’s imaginary “right to control her own body” as more important than the growing fetus’ claim to life.

What did you think, “Who are we, man or woman, to prevent that life from coming into the world?” meant?

But, please,no more. I can already sense that your insults will grow worse. You have absolutely no desire to change your mind. You have already acknowledged that you think I actually feel like everyone else does when I don’t.

Which means that you haven’t even learned anything about how opponents of abortion think and feel.

What a waste of time for both of us.

I have no idea why that is even a position. It certainly shouldn’t be a plank in the platform of a party that sells itself on limited government. It certainly isn’t an argument.
We live within the power structure of the state. Liberals believe that government can and should interfere in any number of affairs — from the Internet to meat — for the “betterment of us all”. It is not beyond the ken that abortion is a procedure worthy of government intervention. Yet each decision that attempts to influence that decision is treated as an “assault” on the unalienable right to an abortion, as if the right to an abortion were the fourth goal in the Preamble to the Constitution.

(That’s what was behind my reference to slavery being overturned, and the idea that the “right to an abortion” has only existed for thirty something years)

I referred to “quickening” for two reasons: one, it is a method (not the method) for measuring life in the womb; and two, because, as the struggle over partial birth abortion has shown, certain pro - abortion advocates don’t want ANY limitation to abortion, in terms of time in the womb.

If I had the power, I would forbid all abortions after 6 months of pregnancy immediately, except in cases where there is a substantial amount of proof that the mother would die in childbirth, or become gravely physically ill, or gravely mentally ill from childbirth, OR, the child in the womb would suffer horribly if born.

If I had the power, I would allow abortions for rape and incest victims.

If I had the power, I would extend the No Child Left Behind Act to include every newborn child for the first two years of its life, regardless of its needs, regardless of the SES of the parents.

{These three things, I believe, would virtually marginalize the Pro-Life movement}

A society that doesn’t care for its children and its elderly, does not deserve the label”civilized”.

Finally, I am not being disingenuous about the role of religion in this. But, two things need to be said: I see nothing wrong with that. It didn’t upset the Left when the clergy supported the Civil Rights movement, or the nuclear disarmament movement, or the anti Vietnam War movement.

Niall Ferguson wrote in the LA Times yesterday:

The moral transformation of England achieved by the evangelical movement, without which the 1807 law abolishing the slave trade would never have been passed, has its echoes in our own time.

Secondly, I have tried to take a non - religious approach to the pro -life argument for years now, and I have changed my view on the “when does life begin” portion of the argument to this:

Since no woman in history has ever given birth to a leggo, a ping pong paddle, or a locomotive, it’s safe to say that the result of a full - term pregnancy will be a child. That being the case, whether or not there is “life” after X amount of weeks is irrelevant. There will be. Who are we, man or woman, to prevent that life from coming into the world?

- Frank DiSalle

The State should not enter into the private affairs of citizens. Abortion is a most deeply private affair. I trust that a woman who decides for whatever motivation that she is unable to bear and care for a child that she should have abortion as one option available to her. Part of that stems from the fact that I know some significant fraction of women would feel desperate enough to engage in a non-medical procedure as they did before abortions were legal in this country, but mostly it is because I am an American and liberty is virtuous in its own right.

Your rebuttal states that government regulations affect people in “different and … unfair ways.” I have no idea why that is even a position. It certainly shouldn’t be a plank in the platform of a party that sells itself on limited government. It certainly isn’t an argument.

Your second rebuttal states that there is an earlier and earlier date of “quickening” and that fetuses can survive out of the womb at ever-earlier stages of development. On the first note, improved medical supervision is not the basis for public policy. Just because we can now watch a baby move early in the second trimester by means of sonograms does not mean that life has suddenly begun more quickly. Quickening, by the way, is an ancient law standard, not a medical one. If you want the date for a medical life formation, I personally choose neurological inception as the entry into independent life, which is somewhere around the 6th month. On the second note, you state that a baby can be born alive at 6 months of pregnancy. That is true, although only with very serious medical intervention. They generally do not breathe on their own, take in food or fluids on their own or expel wastes on their own. Furthermore, I have trouble understanding how this bolsters your argument. You are certainly claiming to restrict abortions before the end of the second trimester, or have you conceded that territory?

Finally, please don’t try to claim that this is not motivated by fundamentalist Christians and conservative Catholics. You make yourself appear even more disingenuous than you do with these specious arguments.

However, the problem with that argument is twofold: One, different people are affected by government regulations in different, and often unfair ways; and two, embryology and obstetrics are tending toward an earlier and earlier date for “quickening” — a reliable standard for describing what is going on in the womb. And, also, the ability of an prematurely - delivered child to survive has improved to a point where a baby born alive at 6 months of pregnancy is no big deal.

Finally, if it were to happen that tomorrow abortions were made illegal, there would be no problem making the act itself seen legally in several different ways, and the performance of that abortion in other different ways, and paying for it, or encouraging it, in yet other ways.

It is not a Christian assault on the womb. There is even an organization called Feminists for Life, with no religious affiliation whatsoever.

Are you fucking kidding me? I thought the United States was the land of the free. I’d love to hear your delusions of oppression.

“and in a split second, that child is protected by one of the most powerful and totalitarian agencies in the United States.”

I think the agency that runs GitMo is a little worse off.

“I thought that was ironic.”

I don’t think you should ever use the word, ‘thought’ to describe what happens in your head.

Your complaints appear to be based on delusions, not reality.

I knew I would be sorry I got into this argument

But I really, really, don’t want to argue about abortion, because you are way more concerned with beating me at this argument than I am with beating you.
Posted by: fd10801 | Jun 4, 2007 7:06:01 PM

Ma, vive

I want that child ti have every opportunity to be born.

If you don’t want the child, give it away, after it is born. It is not a kitten that you put in a sack and throw off a bridge when you can’t find a neighbor or relative to give it to.

Does anyone really believe this about empathy for women?

Then why use language like “choice” to disguise what’s really happening?

Why ignore the potential pain it may cause the father, the grandparents, and, of course, the mother — even if if you don’t believe there is a baby dying in the process.

And, zadura, since you’ve taken the lead in this cause, tell me how you see my position (which I see as protecting a child) as “presuming that women have diminished mental capacity”.

CSS: You have nothing whatever to explain to me about this issue. You are as ignorant as walnut, based on your comments so far.

I was simply pointing out that one single woman can stand against all the powers that be to make a decision, when all of us are slaves to the State in nearly all of our lives, and in a split second, that child is protected by one of the most powerful and totalitarian agencies in the United States.

I thought that was ironic.

Now back to Saskatoon with you, or wherever the fuck you came from.