Abortion

[MaxVance]

Can you at least use the quote () button when quoting a post? Doing a quote by copying and pasting text into quote tags makes it harder to tell who said what.

That said, I agree with your interpretation of what goodie said.

[goodie]

Zarkanthesmasher interpreted my post correctly.

[Forest Guy]

Koopaslaya, I was referring to the endless baww going on in that topic with Vid in it, and that I wasn't going to speak on the matter anymore. I said nothing about leaving. If I did, you can go ahead and point it out to m- oh wait, you can't because I didn't, how bout that!


And following up my amazingly cynical argument earlier on abortion, i think it should be left to the states to decide. (i.e. overturn Roe V. Wade)

[Ambulance Y]

This topic is about your personal opinion, not the state's opinion. I should know, I made it.

[Turtlekid1]

In my opinion, it's not about my opinion.


...what?  My Paradox Gauge^TM is starting to act up.

[Zarkanthesmasher]

Can you at least use the quote () button when quoting a post? Doing a quote by copying and pasting text into quote tags makes it harder to tell who said what.

Sorry about that - on other forums I'm used to using the quote tags, as they don't have a quote button. Thanks for pointing that out.

Forest Guy, while I don't necessarily agree with your opinion, I do consider that very logical. It is getting very tiring that the federal goverment now seems to have all the power in the United States - leaving the state goverments without any final say in any issue. Although, sometimes I also think that the Federal Goverment needs to take control of a situation - especially when battling it out in the states is too time consuming and wasteful.

[Forest Guy]

Well, Ambulance, I already posted my stance. And my stance as a whole is to make it a state ordered law.

[CrossEyed7]

Just for fun, I'll respond to something from four pages ago.

I also believe that humans do not inherently have dignity.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By all means you're free to believe or not believe that (that's part of the Liberty thing), but U.S. law must operate on the assumption that it's true; that as soon as a human begins to exist (note that it's "created equal," not "born equal" like many similar contemporary sources), he or she is entitled to, among other things, the right to continue existing, and "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Insane Steve]

Hahahahaha @ humans being inherently equal. Something about eyewear tinted a certain shade of reddish-pink springs to mind.

Also I totally disagree with the whole making it against the law to disagree with the "moral" right. Wasn't America founded to OPPOSE an oppressive, overbearing government?

Also "the people" have ~0 say in what the government does. America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or a republic. Those in power do a really, really good job of hiding this.

In conclusion: Abortions for some, miniature American flags (made in China) for all.

[CrossEyed7]

Hahahahaha @ humans being inherently equal. Something about eyewear tinted a certain shade of reddish-pink springs to mind.

Like I said, you don't have to believe it, but the government is supposed to.

Also I totally disagree with the whole making it against the law to disagree with the "moral" right. Wasn't America founded to OPPOSE an oppressive, overbearing government?

It's against the law to disagree with people who think stealing is wrong, but that doesn't mean that anti-stealing pressure groups rule the government, it just means they happen to have come to the same conclusion as the government on the issue of stealing.

Also, it seems that you're either:
A. Operating under the assumption that abortion is not murder, and therefore outlawing it would be oppressive
B. Okay with the idea of murder, and think the government shouldn't outlaw much of anything
C. Grouping in other religiopolitical issues irrelevant to the abortion debate

Anyway, I'm not making appeals to morality here. I could just use religion to say that abortion is immoral, but I'm not, because that wouldn't justify a secular government making laws against it. I'm saying that science and philosophy point toward the fetus being a human being, and therefore must be protected by the United States government according to its founding principles. Just because my argument comes to the same conclusion as the religious right doesn't mean I'm asking for a theocracy.

[Forest Guy]

I said this earlier, but I feel it's relevant to this little microcosm of an argument.

I don't necessarily believe that the act of abortion is truly murder in a literal sense. It's more on a level of like... killing a dog. It's still philosophically wrong, but it's not the same as murdering a person. It shouldn't be legal, but I only think that because it's an act of severe irresponsibility and ignorance. Nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with religion, it's all just a matter of you shouldn't need to do it if you didn't do something wrong in the first place.

P.S. Awesome Simpsons reference, Insane Steve.

[MushroomJunkie]

I'm glad you put "pro-life" and not something like "anti-abortion" or something like that.  Because who wants to be "anti"?  Thats negative, you wanna be "pro".  And I'm also glad to see that most people voted for pro life.

[Glorb]

I said this earlier, but I feel it's relevant to this little microcosm of an argument.

I don't necessarily believe that the act of abortion is truly murder in a literal sense. It's more on a level of like... killing a dog. It's still philosophically wrong, but it's not the same as murdering a person.

I'll have to disagree on that. I'm of the belief that all life is equal and killing anything, at least with the intent to kill for no reason, is wrong. Plain and simple. Killing a bug just to kill a bug is wrong, and killing a person just to kill a person is wrong. No middle ground. However, because an infant still in a womb is still developing, and has not yet gained intelligence of any sort, it's not on the same level as killing a human; more like a plant.

[PaperLuigi]

How can you say that? By that logic I can kill anything I darn well please (as long as it isn't an adult) and it wouldn't be bad.

[CrossEyed7]

I touched on the level of development thing earlier. A 2-year-old is less developed than a 40-year-old, but is it more right to kill a 2-year-old, all other things being equal? If not, then development doesn't affect personhood.

As for intelligence, last I checked, it was still illegal to kill stupid people. (And how do we know whether the fetus has any intelligence anyway? How would you measure that?) Furthermore, babies don't stop developing or having little intelligence once they're born, so your argument also says that killing newborns, toddlers, and possibly any children, at least until puberty, isn't really murder.