"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[quip]

Another red herring. You'll gladly force the woman to carry the baby to term if the fetus is past your arbitrary line in the sand.

Facts are now red herrings to you...how convenient.

I have no idea where the latter stems from, I'm not supporting any legislation concerning "late-term" restrictions on abortion. What you don't seem to fathom is the fact that I have this pesky liberal capacity to parse my personal moral views from public legislation when rationality and pragmatics demands such; I'm not garish enough to actually believe my moral views should be imposed upon a "melting pot" society....wholly unlike my straight-laced, albeit myopic, friends here on TOL.

 

[WizardofOz]

Facts are now red herrings to you...how convenient.

No, your previous two posts contained red herrings and no facts. You may want to check that.

Whether you know the parties involved is irrelevant if she's far enough along.
You will ignore the will of the one whose womb carries the unborn concern if she's far enough along.

I have no idea where the latter stems from, I'm not supporting any legislation concerning "late-term" restrictions on abortion. What you don't seem to fathom is the fact that I have this pesky liberal capacity to parse my personal moral views from public legislation when rationality and pragmatics demands such; I'm not garish enough to actually believe my moral views should be imposed upon a "melting pot" society....wholly unlike my straight-laced, albeit myopic, friends here on TOL.

You feel that abortion should be illegal after your arbitrary line of development has been passed. You feel this moral view of yours should be imposed upon society. Don't you feel that abortion should be illegal after a certain point?

Unless you think all abortion should be legal, you agree with my position, albeit inconsistently.

 

[Lion IRC]

Abortion laws dont force women to have babies - getting pregnant does.

What pro-life abortion laws do is simply control the actions of doctors.

...no, you cannot abort that embryo simply because of the gender.
...no, you cannot abort that embryo just because the father is in jail for rape.
...no, you cannot abort that embryo even if the mother is Jewish.

 

[quip]

You feel that abortion should be illegal after your arbitrary line of development has been passed. You feel this moral view of yours should be imposed upon society. Don't you feel that abortion should be illegal after a certain point?

Unless you think all abortion should be legal, you agree with my position, albeit inconsistently.

Now, now, don't try to impale me upon the horns of a false dilemma, it won't work.

Notice those three key words there: "feel". What I feel is only relevant to me; one solitary voice within an overriding majority...who as of right now believes abortion should remain legal and to which I agree even if that means the legality of late-term abortions. If such would change I'd have to suck it up and at least take consolation in the fact late termed fetus' are now free from being aborted.

 

[Angel4Truth]

quip hes right, you work both sides, and have a complete double standard.

You proved that to me, when you said the guy who caused his gf to abort should go to jail for murder, but if she chose to do it, it would be ok.

Thats a complete and utter double standard that its murder unless the woman chooses it. You argue both sides in this thread also.

 

[gcthomas]

Chile's abortion-related mortality has seen upwards of a 90% reduction since they prohibited abortion in 1989. That means that fewer woman are dying today due to abortion-related deaths than they were when abortion was legal in Chile.
[graph]
In 2008, Chile ranked 2nd in the Americas (behind Canada) in terms of maternal mortality (as evaluated by the WHO, UN, UNICEF).

Looks like the reduction after abortions were prohibited was part of a longer trend started by the availability of contraceptives in the 1960s. If anything, the reduction rate decreases after the prohibition.

British hospitals and abortion providers are required to report whether an abortion is done to "save the life of the mother" to the Department of Health. A comprehensive study of all abortions performed in Britain on Irish woman over the last 20 years reveals that there is not a single case of an abortion being performed on an Irish woman to "save her life."

So, why on Earth would you think that EMERGENCY abortions would be carried out on a weekend away in Britain, when such a service is available in Ireland? You seem a little confused.

The idea that Britain is an abortion "safety-valve" keeping Ireland's maternal mortality rate low is simply pro-choice propaganda.

The fact is that Ireland's ban on elective abortions does not extend to banning advertisements and abortion services operating in Ireland that just carry out the operations in the UK. They don't have an effective ban.

 

[quip]

quip hes right, you work both sides, and have a complete double standard.

You proved that to me, when you said the guy who caused his gf to abort should go to jail for murder, but if she chose to do it, it would be ok.

Thats a complete and utter double standard that its murder unless the woman chooses it. You argue both sides in this thread also.

There's no double standard to be had...matter of fact it's quite the opposite. I act according to the personal liberties I out tout here on
TOL regarding choice. I believe that everyone should be guided by his or her moral compass regarding the abortion decision. Likewise, I've set my own personal standard on the issue and act toward them....exactly were is this double standard you speak of?

 

[WizardofOz]

Now, now, don't try to impale me upon the horns of a false dilemma, it won't work.

Deflective nonsense.

Do you "feel" that abortion should be illegal after a certain point or not? I realize that you're not a lawmaker and can only offer your opinion but I am asking your opinion about the law and what you "feel" the law should be for abortion.

Notice those three key words there: "feel". What I feel is only relevant to me; one solitary voice within an overriding majority...who as of right now believes abortion should remain legal and to which I agree even if that means the legality of late-term abortions. If such would change I'd have to suck it up and at least take consolation in the fact late termed fetus' are now free from being aborted.

This is a false dilemma. It's not an all or nothing proposition, quip. I am simply pointing out that if you feel a woman should be legally prevented from receiving an abortion after the fetus is X weeks old then you hold to the same view I do for strangers and a mother carrying a baby in her womb.

If you don't know the woman, should she be legally able to abort at 7 months?

See how it doesn't really matter if you'll ever know the parties involved or not?

 

[Lighthouse]

Chile's abortion-related mortality has seen upwards of a 90% reduction since they prohibited abortion in 1989. That means that fewer woman are dying today due to abortion-related deaths than they were when abortion was legal in Chile.

In 2008, Chile ranked 2nd in the Americas (behind Canada) in terms of maternal mortality (as evaluated by the WHO, UN, UNICEF).


British hospitals and abortion providers are required to report whether an abortion is done to "save the life of the mother" to the Department of Health. A comprehensive study of all abortions performed in Britain on Irish woman over the last 20 years reveals that there is not a single case of an abortion being performed on an Irish woman to "save her life."

The idea that Britain is an abortion "safety-valve" keeping Ireland's maternal mortality rate low is simply pro-choice propaganda.

:thumb:

I remain as impressed, if not even more so, with you as I was nearly a decade ago. I remember you as a very intelligent young teen and am very proud of the honorable young man you have become. Your father raised you well. Tell him I said, "hello," as I have not heard from him in a while.

 

[quip]

Deflective nonsense.

Do you "feel" that abortion should be illegal after a certain point or not? I realize that you're not a lawmaker and can only offer your opinion but I am asking your opinion about the law and what you "feel" the law should be for abortion.

This is a false dilemma. It's not an all or nothing proposition, quip. I am simply pointing out that if you feel a woman should be legally prevented from receiving an abortion after the fetus is X weeks old then you hold to the same view I do for strangers and a mother carrying a baby in her womb.

No, I don't "feel" that abortion - after a certain point - should be illegal. I believe such a determination would be too arbitrary simply because there's some variance/disagreement as to when this point should be. I believe individuals at this point retain the volition to make a choice based upon their own moral standards. I realize that some will choose that which I don't personally agree with but that's the price we pay for our freedoms (all the more reason I support right-to-lifer's equal right to oppose abortions.... moral checks/balances are important) This being said - even late into gestation - I don't consider the unborn fetus the moral/rights equivalent to the mother.

See how it doesn't really matter if you'll ever know the parties involved or not?

No I don't...but at least you admit that the lives you're attempting to "save" will never be known by you. The problem with this is the haughty presumptions lifer's take on behalf of the mother. Lifer's don't even consider her circumstances, nor the environmental circumstances of the life they "save". It's all academic to the average lifer, a lifestyle/moral/political power-game which, at all cost, they must culturally win! A game with only an ostensible compassionate goal, sans any attempt or any possibility at a personal understanding of all circumstances and individuals involved.

 

[gcthomas]

:thumb:

I remain as impressed, if not even more so, with you as I was nearly a decade ago. I remember you as a very intelligent young teen and am very proud of the honorable young man you have become. Your father raised you well. Tell him I said, "hello," as I have not heard from him in a while.

You are impressed by a series of non sequiteurs and graph misinterpretations?

:freak:

 

[Huckleberry]

No I don't...but at least you admit that the lives you're attempting to "save" will never be known by you. The problem with this is the haughty presumptions lifer's take on behalf of the mother. Lifer's don't even consider her circumstances, nor the environmental circumstances of the life they "save". It's all academic to the average lifer, a lifestyle/moral/political power-game which, at all cost, they must culturally win! A game with only an ostensible compassionate goal, sans any attempt or any possibility at a personal understanding of all circumstances and individuals involved.

"Lifers"...that is, people who actually value life...they tend to understand that even a hard life, even a painful life, has value. Even a life of suffering and torment can, in the end, be fruitful. They recognize this argument of yours for the utter crap that it is. They recognize that "environmental circumstances" don't effect the value of the lives in question one iota.

In fact...why don't you give us an example of "environmental circumstances" so terrible that you would snuff a person out before they are even born into it? Can you do that while acknowledging, even hypothetically, that you commit murder in doing so? Because, you see, that is our position. Give us, then, an example. Illustrate one of these merciful murders you support.

 

[quip]

"Lifers"...that is, people who actually value life...

Yea, sure:"life" the concept.

In fact...why don't you give us an example of "environmental circumstances" so terrible that you would snuff a person out before they are even born into it?

Unnecessary, the "so terrible"...Huckleberry-described addendum was sufficient. So was it ample evidence to my point...if i pointed you in the direction of real-world evidence, would you care anyway....after all, that "baby" was saved!?

Spare me the rest of this bleeding heart pretension...blood that bleeds blue's not very compelling.

 

[WizardofOz]

No, I don't "feel" that abortion - after a certain point - should be illegal.

:down:
If a woman could find a doctor to abort her viable fetus, she should be able to with no legal repercussions?

How very Gosnell of you.

No I don't...but at least you admit that the lives you're attempting to "save" will never be known by you.

Why would I have trouble admitting that? Of course I will not know these people.

It's OK for you to argue on principle but I am not allowed? :liberals:

Would I have to know them well? Can I say "hi" just once or must I have them over for dinner?

Repeating a red herring doesn't change its color.

The problem with this is the haughty presumptions lifer's take on behalf of the mother. Lifer's don't even consider her circumstances, nor the environmental circumstances of the life they "save". It's all academic to the average lifer, a lifestyle/moral/political power-game which, at all cost, they must culturally win! A game with only an ostensible compassionate goal, sans any attempt or any possibility at a personal understanding of all circumstances and individuals involved.

It seems that you view this as a game. I most certainly do not and believe most pro-lifers do not view it as a game either.

What circumstances? By all means.....

 

[quip]

:down:
If a woman could find a doctor to abort her viable fetus, she should be able to with no legal repercussions?

How very Gosnell of you.

You asked :idunno: .... an obvious attempt to bait and probe for specific answers (you didn't get.). Perhaps, don't go sniffing around for what you might possilbly smell.

Why would I have trouble admitting that? Of course I will not know these people.

It's OK for you to argue on principle but I am not allowed? :liberals:

Would I have to know them well? Can I say "hi" just once or must I have them over for dinner?

Repeating a red herring doesn't change its color.

:freak: Whatever are you going on about?! And I was actually giving you props for at least being honest.

It seems that you view this as a game. I most certainly do not and believe most pro-lifers do not view it as a game either.

What circumstances? By all means.....

Me? Reading comp. mon frère!

 

[Huckleberry]

Unnecessary, the "so terrible"...Huckleberry-described addendum was sufficient. So was it ample evidence to my point...if i pointed you in the direction of real-world evidence, would you care anyway....after all, that "baby" was saved!?

Spare me the rest of this bleeding heart pretension...blood that bleeds blue's not very compelling.

A lot of :blabla:

So no example of environmental circumstances that you believe would justify abortion as an act of mercy? Isn't that what you argued in accusing lifers of not caring about such things?

 

[quip]

A lot of :blabla:

So no example of environmental circumstances that you believe would justify abortion as an act of mercy? Isn't that what you argued in accusing lifers of not caring about such things?

Well, no...if you'd bother to apply some grey matter to your rhetoric..one can't supply evidence to something that's yet to happen. (Hint: abortions happen prior to the circumstances they would have experienced if they had been born into them.)

Either way, any anecdotal evidence would have simply been rejected by you..matter of fact you've had plans all along to reject anything I might say..because you're silly question was a (straw)rhetorical question..no?

 

[WizardofOz]

You asked :idunno: .... an obvious attempt to bait and probe for specific answers (you didn't get.). Perhaps, don't go sniffing around for what you might possilbly smell.

:doh: I am not baiting. We were having a discussion. I asked a question.

Heaven forbid!

You think all abortion should be legal. I did not recall you saying so in our past discussions. Now I know.

I *feel* that your position is terrible and extreme even for the pro-choice side.

:freak: Whatever are you going on about?! And I was actually giving you props for at least being honest.

What I am being honest about has nothing. to. do. with. anything.

You will never know everyone who has been robbed. Should robbery be legal? Or, should robbery only be illegal when you know the person?

That you would toss out such an obvious red herring and yet continue to bring it up is...just swell

Me? Reading comp. mon frère!

You've repeatedly brought up circumstance that may justify abortion. Yet, you never actually name any such circumstance.

There's a line for the potty, get on with it already.

 

[WizardofOz]

Either way, any anecdotal evidence would have simply been rejected by you..matter of fact you've had plans all along to reject anything I might say..because you're silly question was a (straw)rhetorical question..no?

Nearly all anecdotal evidence that you're so hesitant to mention can be countered with one word.

Adoption.

Don't want the baby? There's a way out and :idea: the baby can even not be killed!

Novel idea.

 

[quip]

:doh: I am not baiting. We were having a discussion. I asked a question.

Heaven forbid!

You think all abortion should be legal. I did not recall you saying so in our past discussions. Now I know.

I *feel* that your position is terrible and extreme even for the pro-choice side.

Complex perhaps but extreme? Abortion is a complex issue, there's no easy answers...that is, if you're viewing abortion from an non-biased/objective perspective.

What I am being honest about has nothing. to. do. with. anything.

From your perspective...perhaps.

You will never know everyone who has been robbed. Should robbery be legal? Or, should robbery only be illegal when you know the person?

That you would toss out such an obvious red herring and yet continue to bring it up is...just swell

The charge of red-herring is a rich one considering being robbed has nothing to do with abortion. The robber and the robbed aren't conjoined by physical bounds...at least not on the crime dramas I've been watching. That physical link is key to my "red herring" and the circumstances as to why a woman would desire to sever this link is precisely the abortion issue pro-lifers utterly refuse to discuss. I've repeatedly attempted to discuss such...to no avail. TH being the latest one to simply ignore a discussion regarding the mother. As if the fetus subsists in abstract space somewhere.

You've repeatedly brought up circumstance that may justify abortion. Yet, you never actually name any such circumstance.

There's a line for the potty, get on with it already.

Because they're relative to each pregnancy/woman. I could give you a worst-case yet, you all would still scream bloody murder anyway. So, it would be pointless hoop jumping...I don't hoop jump without adequate compensation $$