Beatlefan58

So a fetus is dead? Those are the two choices---alive or dead. There is no inbetween.

And if dead, then it becomes alive somehow, as I assume you are? That's a miracle. Rock and steel can't do that. We maybe shouldn't be interferring with a miracle in process; the One that is causing that miracle may not appreciate it.


By that logic, a newborn human baby isn't alive either--it has to be fed and given liquid. It has not the means to do so on its own.

Edit-- I went back and read your first note and you equate the ability to express a desire for food with the ability to acquire it. It's not the same thing, but even under your logic, a fetus has the ability to acquire food--it gets it from its mother without having to express a need for it.

tecoyah

The human brain shows activity that is generally considered "Human" at around the third trimester. This is the point where science considers Thought as we define it likely, and is thus the defined cut off in Roe vs. Wade.

All animals are alive, The Human mind is what defines Homo Sapien.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ARTelevision

I've posted this in previous abortion threads.
You can call it "murder" and I still have no problem with abortion on demand, period.

__________________
create evolution

madsenj37

Let me put in my two cents. I am pro-life with the three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother. My reasoning is that sex is a choice. You know that sex can lead to pregnancy. If your not ready for parenthood, do not have sex. Even with proper birth control, pregnancies occur. Be responsible. Now with that said, abortion in the case of rape takes away the mothers choice to have a baby. Death of the mother takes away her choice to live. Incest is a choice society will not choose. We do not want our genepool messed up. Sex to me is the choice. When that choice is taken away, abortion is acceptable. Any other reason for abortion is not exceptable in my opinion. I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

filtherton

If the only distinction available is alive or dead, then by that logic, i'm commiting murder if i cut a bit of skin off of my finger accidentally. Human life is human life, even if it is just a clump of cells.

I think inaction despite the ability to intervene is the same thing as acceptance.

As for the topic at hand, i'm with art.

Robaggio

There is a third state of being. It's called nothing. My keyboard is doing a good job at being neither alive nor dead (it's made of plastic).

If my keyboard suddenly became alive, would that become a miracle? Of course it'd be a miracle. But only to this definition of the word: "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." Lets try to keep things on topic: god has no place in a logical (philisophical) discussion.

The fetus does not grow onto the mother. The mother grows onto the fetus. The mother's own body creates the mechanisms for which the fetus aquires resources without any manipulation from the fetus itself. Pregnancy itself was developed as an evolutionary advantage to make children. That is, pregnancy evolved and developed to create fetuses- fetuses did not (and do not) create pregnancy. Basically, we're dealting with "chicken or the egg" argument in a different form. The chicken (or it's ancestor, or 'transition species' if you want to mesh words- though everything is a transition species) came first and created the egg. The egg didn't coax the chicken into creating it, nor was the chicken manipulated into facilitating the egg's creation by anything at the egg's hand.

There is nothing done by the fetus to make the mother create it. The mother does it all on her own in an attempt to make copies of herself. Once the copy is made, well, then the manipulation begins That's when they fend for themselves- and it all starts with crying.

MageB420666

I think my answer of it being a part of the mother is pretty satisfactory, she sustains it, carries it around, feeds it enough for it to grow. nearly the same thing as her hand, except that her hand doesn't live after it has been painfully and labourously(I hope that is a word) detached.

As I said before, until the fetus is able to support itself on the outside, (I mean breathing, heartbeat, etc., not going to grab a bite at McDonalds) it is a part of the woman's body and hers to do with as she pleases, even if it is to cut it off and kill it. It can roughly be compared with a parasite, it grows and feeds off of her without giving anything in return.(I'm speaking about an unwanted pregnancy, if it's wanted then it returns a sense of happiness, etc. back to the mother).

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

Beatlefan58

No, your keyboard is dead. It's never been alive, it never will be. The appeal to nothingness is a dodge.

Wrong on two counts. If a believer in God having a logical or philosophical discussion with someone that doesn't believe in a higher power, there is lacking a common frame of reference from which to begin. Second, bringing up the miracle that is life is on the topic of abortion.

Accepting that takes a lot more blind faith than accepting there is a Creator that set up the system, but now you're getting afield.


Now you've discounted the role of the father. But the fetus is doing all it can to survive in the womb; crying isn't an option because it is unnecessary.

seep

I think that makes sense.

"if the fetus isn't "life", then what it is?"

Eh, I'll go with what the above posters are saying about this.

Well, that and the fact that life isn't platonic and neatly divided into discrete categories. That's something that comes up in a lot of areas, I find...

But my real answer (which I believe no one else has offered) is: who fucking cares? I don't have a problem with taking mental vegetables off of life support either, murdering bastard that I am. I don't shed tears over anything with the IQ of sea algae, sorry, and unless you're buying into airy concepts like "souls" which are magically injected into zygotes upon formation there's no need to.

But I'm off the topic now.

I remained unswayed from my position in the original post: if a fetus is basically a baby, I don't see how you can argue around special cases of rape (or incest, which I forgot about). It doesn't matter whose rights have been violated or whatever, you're still committing murder. I can't see any way to reconcile this.

And again, the thought that keeps coming back to me is this: pretty much nobody seriously considers abortion on the same level as murder, and these really tough special situations basically call people on their bullshit. It's pretty easy to to talk down to a woman that had a condom break on her (or whatever) but when the woman is clearly a victim critics hastily get off of their high horses.

And now that I think about it, what's the deal with the incest exception? Assuming the incest was voluntary (otherwise it would fall under "rape") who are we trying to benefit here? To every pro-lifer who makes an exception for incest, would you make an exception for non life-threatening mental retardation?

[edited out of respect to the intelligence of bugs ]

Robaggio

"No, your keyboard is dead. It's never been alive, it never will be. The appeal to nothingness is a dodge."

You're right, my keyboard has never been alive. However, it also never died. Look up "dead" - all definitions of the word relate to something that has died or does not function like it once did. I'm not trying to 'dodge' things. In philosophy, the third state of being is common knowledge.

"Wrong on two counts. If a believer in God having a logical or philosophical discussion with someone that doesn't believe in a higher power, there is lacking a common frame of reference from which to begin."

Right again, a common frame is lacking here. It's fairly elementary in philosophy that you cannot have a logical discussion while citing religion as fact. You're bringing extra baggage along for the ride. God needs to be dropped at the doorstep if you're ever going to have a philosophical discussion. (That is of course, unless you're discussing his existence, which isn't the topic at hand.) If I were to adopt your frame of discussion, then I would be contributing to one of the cardinal fallacies of philosophy. To put it bluntly: There is no god- his existence cannot be proven and therefore the notion is illogical. Now, on the other hand, the belief in god is logical- but only so far as to say "I believe in god." It is a fact that someone believes in something. However, someone's belief is not fact.

"Second, bringing up the miracle that is life is on the topic of abortion. "

I don't understand this phrase. Could you rewrite it differently? Perhaps define what 'the miracle that is life' is? I am not being sarcastic. I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.

"Accepting that takes a lot more blind faith than accepting there is a Creator that set up the system, but now you're getting afield."

The differences in pregnancies between all animals are a direct result of evolution. Some animals lay eggs and some have live birth. Some eggs are soft and others are hard. Some animals carry their young for a short period of time and some carry young for a very long time. The pregnancy is a result of the animal's environment. Mothers have evolved over time and have developed strategies to best make copies of themselves. What works for one animal in one environment might not work for another. For example, soft fish eggs would not do particularly well buried in the sand of the desert like the eggs of certain insects. These tactics and variences are not the result of the embryo. They are specificly tailored by the mothers and refined throughout history via evolution.

Here's a little scenario to help describe this better. Female humans have wide hips to facilitate holding the fetus during pregnancy. The only reason females have wide hips today is because at some point in history, females with thin hips were weeded out. Because females with thin hips could not make copies of themselves as effectively as those with wide hips, the 'thin hip' trait died off. This is how pregnancy became refined through evolution. Females that exherted particular traits passed on their genes and thus, pregnancy became a bit more tailored to facilitate holding the fetus. It is important to note that there is no point at which the fetus does anything to manipulate pregnancy in it's favor. Fetuses are a product of an organism attempting to make a copy of itself.

"Now you've discounted the role of the father. But the fetus is doing all it can to survive in the womb; crying isn't an option because it is unnecessary."

What does the father's role have anything to do with anything? Once sperm comes in contact with the woman's egg, the woman's body decides that she has enough genetic material to create a copy of herself. The fetus is a work in progress. It has no means for which to survive. It isn't manipulating the woman's body, the woman's body is manipulating it as it has evolved to do over time.

Kalibah

I'm up in the air. Im am against life birth abortions - aka partial birth abortions.

Why?

"For the most part, the abortion industry stopped using saline and prostaglandin procedures because of the number of live births. A live birth means you have to let the baby die, or dispose of it in some distasteful way. Most second and third trimester abortionists use the D&E method, (dilation and evacuation) The abortionist uses large forceps to crush the baby inside the mother's uterus and removes it in pieces. The side effects of live births and the mother going through labor are avoided. But it is a horrible procedure in which the baby must be re-constructed outside the uterus to be certain all the parts have been removed."

Carol Everett, former owner of 2 abortion clinics and director of 4, on the abortion procedure. Quoted in an interview with her in the "Human Life Alliance Advertising Supplement" 1994. (Ms. Everett was busted for having her clinics knowingly perform abortions on nonpregnant women, at a great risk of causing damage to the cervix and future miscarriages)



I understand its a slippery slope- Womans rights etc. But at a certain point- isnt that a baby? At 9 monthes it could survive outside a mothers womb, so dont tell me it couldnt survive w/o the mom therefore its a part of her.

When you stick forceps INTO the mother to crush the babies skull - its abortion- but if its 6 inches out - then its murder? Common people-

atleast keep partia lbirth abortions illegal!!!!!

thefictionweliv

I disagree, both should argue their views from their respective frame of belief. Removing God from his discussion would be forcing him to cite that God has nothing to do with the topic is just as wrong as you being forced to say that he does. It takes just as much faith to say there is God as to say there isn't.

Robaggio

If he is unable to continue the conversation on the premise that there is no god, then we're not having a philisophical discussion. Philosophy isn't about arguing views from different frames of beliefs. Philosophy is about coming to a conclution devoid of any predjudace from these frames of belief.

It takes no faith to say "I believe there is no god". It's quite simple really. If existence can be proven, he exists, if not, he doesn't. You'll note that I never said I didn't believe in god. I did however, say that his existence could not be proven. Therefore, I'm not bringing his presense into the conversation. I'm not going to argue things from the premise that something exists because I say so. This is illogical.

There is a big difference between:
"I think abortion is/isnt killing because of god's teachings."
&
"I think abortion is/isnt killing becuase of some physical observation."

If both parties adopt religion as the 'common frame' for discussion, then they arn't discussing abortion, they're discussing different interpretations on how their religion views the subject. I don't care to battle with someone over their interpretation of god's will. It's quite obvious the result when this occurs- just look at the middle east. I want to discuss why abortion is 'wrong', or why a fetus is alive, or why rape abortion is wrong. I don't wish to dicuss whether god said it was ok or not.

thefictionweliv

Moral self-discipline can often be a product of ones religious beliefs, many religious people would seek wisdom from their intellectual knowledge of the Bible.
It would be logical for someone who believes in God to take the miricle of life as such rather than a biological act to be seen(ie empirical)
It would be a belief that the child is life that has a soul and its death would be murder, for him to defend it without taking this as fact would not be a critical analysis of his fundamental beliefs.
Note Science and Liberal Arts, LA curriculums often involve the study of many forms of beliefs from Nihilism to the Bible to the Greek gods.
He lives by the fact that life is sacred, it is his philosophy that life is sacred and therefore it has part in a philosphical debate.

Robaggio

Actually, moral self-dicipline refers to the removal of morals from one's self. It's the self dicipline to temporarilly forget about morals in order to have a conversation devoid of their presense. Failure to do this results in endless conflict. For example:

Person A says: I believe abortion is wrong.
Person B says: I believe abortion is right.

The result is nothing. Nothing is established past the fact that two people disagree. It's only when morals are truly removed does true philosophical discussion begin. The goal is to talk about abortion- not what you think about it, not what I think about it, and certainly not what god thinks about it. It should be noted that I have never said in my posts "I believe" in reference to something I personally hold to myself. The points I've made were based on observations, not beliefs. You cannot use belief to refute observation, only more observation can do that. The only observation Beatlefan58 has made is that 'life is a miracle'- and this itself isn't an observation about life/abortion even, it's an observation he's made about his beliefs on god. You pointed it out yourself even, emprical data cannot be refuted by theoretical data. (religion is theology...)

Where does this leave us? Well, nowhere really. He's arguing his case from his beliefs and I'm pointing out observations. It isn't my fault he's trying to refute observations with theology. I set up the scenario and he's trying to take it down through completely unrelated means.

"Note Science and Liberal Arts, LA curriculums often involve the study of many forms of beliefs from Nihilism to the Bible to the Greek gods."

What's your point here? Science is merely studying people's religion, or rather, the fact that people believe in a particular religion. You certainly don't see science trying to prove/disprove Zeus' existence. Science is merely making the observation that some people believed in him. (On a side note, I read an article that said some people still believe in Zeus and co! Isn't that crazy? I'll try to dig it up, it's very interesting.)

hoosier52

Not so LostInLife; I wasn't referring to Angelina Jolie at all. I was thinking of a couple in our own small community that has 3 adopted children from India. Inaddition to that, I've been reading in some christian magazines about americans and foreign adoptions. I also recall a CNN article about it. Besides,I wasn't necessarily disagreening with your statement that the adoption agencies are full; I just haven't seen any other evidence to support it.

daking

Robaggio, you are spot on. I agree with you 100%.

I think just because we cannot determine where exactly a baby begins to think for itself. Doesnt mean that transformation exists.

Well you can prove it exists at some point, as an embryo obviously cannot think for itself but a baby can. So any point before that transformation i think its ok to zap that biological material.

I guess the barrier is blured tho. Like a constant increase of cerebral activity. If this can be measured somehow one can come to a more accurate conclusion.

Until then we can go with what estimates we have.

mandal

i think all you pro-lifers need to make your title more clear. how about pro-human-lifers. Life is a miracle, yet you take it away day by eating animals and plants.

Ananas

This is an individual's private business, and should remain as such. There is no way you or any government should be making a decision for me that concerns my body, my mind, my future, and my ability to make my own choices concerning something so personal. More importanly, no individual or no government should be in the business of forcing me to carry something unwanted or forced upon me by some criminal. And, it's not just 9 months of hell and trauma - it's a lifetime of horror, of memories, of fear and loathing. Why would you want to make a horrible situation even worse for the woman involved?

Those who care about children can focus their attention on those already here. Become a teacher, a mentor, provide food, whatever.

Stop putting your nose into other's business. If you or a loved one becomes pregnant due to rape or incest, I will respect your privacy and your decision. Accord everyone else the same courtesy.

MSD

I feel that if the mother has taken precautions against pregnancy, or if she was raped, then abortion is completely acceptable. The same goes for a pregnancy that will result in severe birth defects.

What I have a problem with is abortion as a matter of convenience. If you don't use birth control, then it's your own fault and the child should be given up for adoption. It should be a way to fix a problem that has slipped through the cracks, not to compensate for your own negligence or incompetence.

I believe that life begins at the point of viability. I wouldn't personally advocate abortion after the point at which it develops a functioning nervous system, but I wouldn't condemn it either.

Stompy

I'm 100% pro choice as well.

A fetus is nothing more than a collection of growing cells. A wart is nothing more than a collection of growing cells, so is a tumor.

If you wait till the 3rd trimester to abort, yeah, you're pushing it.

Personally, I don't remember the time before I was 4. So when people respond and say, "So you'd be okay if your mother aborted you?" Well, no, because I wouldn't exist. If you ask me now that I'm alive, then sure, I'll give you a response based on my concsious thought process, but had I been aborted as a fetus or even brutally murdered as a baby, I wouldn't have known the difference, so it's kinda moot.

Doesn't justify going around and killing babies at random, but goes to show that a person doesn't really have a conscious mind until a much later age.

However, that's a different discussion, as killing a baby after it's full birth IS illegal, and rightfully so.

Before that point, however, is fair game.

__________________
I love lamp.

kd4

getting an abortion when the pregnancy is unwanted is in my mind the most blatant form of irresponsibility. As for different circumstances, IE rape, there is always adoption. Will it be hard for her carrying a child who's a product of rape? Yes most definitely, but certainly she will not be alone. In fact, I think even more so because she has the courage to go through with the pregnancy and not cause another tragedy, ending the baby's life.

daking

Wow how heartless. This is what gets me, people like you would go against all medical and scientific evidence that demonstrate that an embryo cannot think or is in anyway cogent, but you would still encourage a rape victim thru to full term.

If your wife ( I presume your a man i cant think a woman could be so callous) was raped, would you want her to have the baby of the man that raped her?

kd4

If I was indeed heartless I would not think that she would need more extensive counseling to deal with getting raped and having that child. As for me, it would be extremely difficult for myself if my wife was raped and had a child. Almost certainly I would not like to keep the child, but would indeed give it for adoption. What I think about this is, why kill another person, who has the possibility to live a happy life, because of something they did not do?

edit: this part is concerning what is considered a baby.

Now lets say you and your spouse were trying to have a baby. Happy news, you've conceived a child, now lets your wife suffers a miscarriage roughly 2 weeks into the pregnancy. Now do you think that would be your child that died or just a bunch of cells?

dontmisspel

Interesting but wrong, observations are subjective and fundamentally flawed everyone sees what they want to see. What you see, hear, feel, touch and smell are all subjective and theoretically speaking have no necessary correlation to life. As in you BELIEVE what your senses tell you.
Person A: There are 3 apples on the table
Person B: There are 4 apples on the table
* for all it matters in reality there could be 1 million apples on the table
Think about it you say that the existence of god can not be proven and beliefs shouldn’t be included. However, can you prove to me that you exist, the fact that you exist is my belief does that mean you can’t be in my argument. Science is great I believe in it, but NOTHING I repeat NOTHING can be proven with certainty, which means you have to have a certain degree of belief in everything.


*When I say nothing can be proven it is misleading, you yourself exist and it requires no proof it is a given (if you remember high school geometry).

----------
Philosophy is the study of nature and etc. through the use of logic without empirical evidence.
Logic is a system of reason.
Reason is a logical way of thought.(see a paradox)- look up the definitions if you don’t trust me.

Suave

The reason I'm against casual abortion (meaning not post-rape/mother in mortal danger) is that it absolves people of responsibility. Didn't wear a condom or use other protection? NO PROB! Just go to the clinic and destroy the life being created inside of you, and don't deal with the issues of being an irresponsible <insert choice word>.

daking

Bunch of cells ofcourse.

Sure the wife would be upset at losing the possiblilty of having a child at that point in time but 2 weeks in ofcouse its nothing more than some jelly shit. She may even feel that a 'baby' had died, I could even console her as such. But the difference between you and me is that I would know better due to medical science whereas you reject the evidence to satisfy your own persecutive beliefs.

This is a completely facile and pointless argument. For the purposes of a rational debate Being 'certain' is an empirical measure , If i hit myself in the head with a hammer im certain that it will hurt. I know it will hurt and if i smack my self another 1000 times it will really fucking hurt. It doesnt require belief to know so, in the least not belief on the scale of bringing god into the equation. Science provides us with an answer why it hurts. God which by human experience necessarily is an act of faith does not.It is such aribtairy and out of proportion belief systems that are required to be purged from philisopical discussion.

Furthermore one shouldnt consider lack of certainty the sole domain of belief systems. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just one of many natural and physical processes that can be measured considered and deduced. Uncertaintly can be rationally addressed with far more rigour in science than it can be in faith.

kd4

I'd like to mention that my beliefs are not persecutive. There are simply people that believe the same as I do, abortion is bad, and they persecute people who get abortions. I do not.

Stompy

These abortion discussions are always interesting because each side tries so hard to desperately justify their belief to the other.

I think what a lot of people (in general) don't understand is that there really is NO right/wrong. I'm pro-choice and at the same time, I can totally understand why someone who is pro-life thinks they way they do.

The key thing here is that people need to not force their beliefs upon others and live with tolerance of what the other side does. You can keep your belief and do you part my not partcipating in the thing you are against, but by all means, don't look down upon others who believe or think differently.

A lot of people lose focus on that key aspect and go off and do things like create laws, or stand outside of clinics harassing people. I can't really think of many instances in which pro-choicers piss off pro-lifers aside from the fact they are pro-choice. Pro-life (the extreme ones) seem to be the ones killing the docs, blowing up clinics, harassing people, etc. It's all unnecessary.

I mean, really... we'll never (any time soon, anyway) find out the point at which life REALLY begins, or when the cluster of cells actually turns into a life, or the exact point when it's REALLY "okay" to kill those cells. It just won't happen.

But... the debates will rage on. I think people in general just need to kinda drop it and accept that it's the way things are and not everything that goes on in life will please you or go YOUR way.

__________________
I love lamp.

Suave

Since you only have experience with one side of the situation ("the hammer will hurt"), how can you profess to know that the pain caused does not require belief? The problem that I have with everyone sucking the proverbial cock of science is that many of them have had it in their mouth for so long that they don't realise they are capable of taking it out. Has science become so ingrained into your consciousness that you actually think that there is no belief in it required on your part? That everything in science is simply self-evident?

daking

Ofcourse it isnt self evident, if it was then it would really be quite boring. Science provides a methodical framework within which to consider issues logically rationally and with a certain degree of rigour. Without such a framework one is free to claim the impossible, teach the unfounded, and act the indefensible.

Is that Jealousy or Denial i sense in that statement. Maybe both.






Because it has been demonstrated, researched, documented, analysed, tested, simulated, felt, predicted and confirmed. Because scientifically it is proven.

gondath

I'm getting the sense that science is being used to rationalize beliefs here and not the other way around. I've never met anyone who founded an opinion on abortion after doing research in medical texts.

daking

I would disagree with you, isnt the very fact that term limits exist in regard to abortion based on a scientific anaylsis of the development of a fetus/baby in the womb.

Most people would say abortion in the 30th week is wrong for this reason, even if they were pro-choice.

gondath

Give a break. Obviously, doctors in the field of abortion or legislators are exceptions. I'm not talking about people with a stake in the field. My point is most people have their mind set before backing up their ideas on abortion with supposed science.

dontmisspel

There is no almost right there is wrong or right when talking about empirical evidence that is what I mean by certainty, when speaking empirically in relation to science all the laws in science simply haven't been disproved doesn't mean they exist. As in yes it is true there is overwhelming evidence in everything science torts but there is no proof that would allow anyone to make the assumption that it holds true for every case, nothing can be tested with all variables controlled, therefore it is not certain, absolute or a law, it requires a measure of belief because of that uncertainty.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principal limits as well as informs, as in we can never know the location or energy of any atomic particle with certainty or accuracy (if we knew the location of an electron then that electron would have infinite energy, which is impossible, or if we knew the energy then that electron could be anywhere in the universe), so my friend I could never truly know where I am located or how much energy all the particles in my body have. I believe that's pretty fucking irrational or how about the fact that an electron when faced with two choices of either going one way or another way chooses both unless we measure it. That you think doesn't require belief, what I’m saying is that you use science as not a belief system but it is a belief system in a way. Simply it's much more useful then religion when you want technological advancement.

Follow this path : man measures a line to be 1 m with an accuracy of +-.1 ( as in it could be any number between and including .9m to 1.1m)
Second man takes another 1 m line with the same accuracy and adds it to the previous
Third man does the same and so does fourth...... until 10000th man

Where now the line that has been completed could be off by +-1000m (1 m is about a yard)
It is an insufficient example but it does serve my point science lays foundations that are inaccurate or uncertain by small percentage and then it builds on it. It therefore requires belief to assume that modern science is correct as in going back to excluding belief from a philosophical argument you would also have to exclude science. Then all we are left with is opinions.
Which relates back to the abortion question no one will ever agree on it because the sides don't agree on anything relating to abortion, you can't have an argument on if something is right or isn't if you don't first have a common starting point.
Example : Let's objectively decide which is better a green or red apple
If one side doesn't believe in apples and never will or the other doesn't believe that colors matter or if they don’t agree on what apples are then there can be no satisfactory solution to this problem. Abortion isn't apples but I hope you get my point.

Suave

And they are still free to do so within that framework if they so choose.

To be honest, I just wanted to use some graphic metaphors. I have no desire to suck on a penis of any sort, proverbial or otherwise.

Nothing can be scientifically proven; one can only build up stronger evidence to support their case.

FoolThemAll

Nice idea, I don't believe it myself, but it's irrelevant for two reasons.

One, you kinda killed the basis for your 'key thing' when you went ahead and declared that there "really is NO right/wrong". There's no right choice between tolerance and intolerance, it's just personal preference.

Two, I'm betting that you're perfectly willing to force your beliefs on others in a great number of cases. I'll name an extreme case: torturing innocent babies for fun. And for another extreme: infanticide. Killing children in, say, their first year of life outside the womb. Am I right, or would you favor tolerance in these cases?

So then unless you're willing to tolerate fascism or infanticide, it goes back to the main point of discussion: is abortion similar enough to things that shouldn't be tolerated to be itself an intolerable act?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Kalibah

ProCHOICE is a misnomer IMO

Its like saying " well I wouldnt kill but its okay if you do"

I understand that argument is WAY to easy to pick apart- but its just how i view things. It's pro-abortion or Pro-life in my mind.

filtherton

Is that kind've like the "Your either pro choice, or your pro coat hanger in the cervix" argument?

inharmony

I believe in pro choice. Women should be allowed to choose, period. I don't, however, agree that a woman should be able to use as a form of birth control.

__________________
"You can't shake hands with a clenched fist."
Ghandi

"Things do not change: We change"
Henry David Thoreau