Can we support a pro-abortion candidate

[arunangelo]

Can we support a candidate who does not recognize all human beings as human beings?

We have human rights because we have human life. In other words if we did not have life in the first place, our rights would not be an issue. Therefore, if anyone accepts or promotes laws that allow destruction of human life-especially lives of the most helpless and innocent unborn babies, any talk about any other issue related to helping human beings and protecting their rights and well being becomes a mute issue. Furthermore, abortion is the worst crime because a helpless unborn innocent human being is murdered by a physician who is supposed to a healer and the mother who is supposed to protect and nurture the baby. How can anyone support a candidate who supports and promotes such a terrible crime and is unwilling to call victims of such a crime human beings: after they survived botched abortions)? Would not supporting such a candidate be similar to supporting a Nazi candidate?

[realthinker]

You have clearly made a strictly emotional appeal by attempting to include a woman killing her living children and even her husband as being somehow related to her making a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Its not an emotional appeal just because someone gets "emotional" about it. If one were to argue to "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?(Zzyzx)", one would have to justify why it would be ok to kill another human life within that body. If the child growing in the woman depends on the woman for survival, what is the difference between it and her toddler who both equally depend on her for survival?

Fisherking, it's upon you to show why your example is meaningful. if you feel the situation is similar and the precedent for that situation should be applied, exhibit the similarity and support it with facts. Failing to do that, you've anticipated that the similarity would be evident and acceptable, or you're counting on the emotional response to your example to overwhelm the need to exhibit the similarity. Either way, it's not a valid approach.

For what it's worth, the toddler is not equally dependent upon the mother. There are billions of others who might satisfy all of the toddler's requirements for life. That cannot be said for a fetus. There is nothing that might be done to transfer that dependence.

The "abortion three days before birth" "argument" is a ridiculous emotional appeal. Even if you cannot recognize that, others certainly do.

Again, just because pro-abortion advocates get emotional about the issue does not make it an emotional appeal. If we should "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?(Zzyzx)", wouldn't that position cover abortions 3 days before birth?

Supposing a child would be born with some really horrible condition that would make its life a 'living hell', I see a certain compassion in aborting the child.

There are many children born into horrible conditions extremely thankful they were given a chance to be born.

Can you cite statistics to show the relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions? Or, is the statement pure conjecture and opinion?

I never attempted to show a relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions. That would be a strawman fallacy, often used as an attempt to derail a debate. Would you like statistics of people alive today, born in horrible conditions, that are thankful for their lives?

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

I am not surprised.

That is strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body. "Give an inch and take a mile" applies.

How would one supporting an abortion ban be a "strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body"?

I might favor some limitation of late term abortions IF abortion opponents were demonstrably sincere in suggesting just that much limitation.

How could one support limitating late-term abortions when one believes we should "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body"?

It is my opinion that abortion should not be a substitute for responsible behavior. Each should know one's intentions regarding parenthood and should act in accordance with that intention. While abstinence is the only guaranteed behavior to maintain one's intent to not risk parenthood, it's also well known that complete abstinence does not help to build a lasting adult relationship. Those relationships having an active and healthy sexual component are most satisfying. There are other non-abstinence approaches to the control of pregnancy that are considered to be responsible behavior. Those each, however, may still result in an unanticipated pregnancy. I am of the opinion that in a situation where people are acting responsibly but still find themselves with an unanticipated pregnancy, those people should still have the opportunity to exercise their intent. That should be done immediately and finally. I believe that certain circumstances can only be encountered when one has not been responsible. A woman should be aware enough of her condition to recognize pregnancy within the first two months. There may be medical conditions that make that difficult, but there are probably other factors of those conditions to be aware of that should inspire caution.

With this in mind, I think there could be some fairly simple stipulations regarding abortion. The decision to abort must come before the end of the first trimester of gestation. It must be declared within 72 hours of the determination of pregnancy. Beyond that, there must be a review of medical conditions by a board of certified medical professionals to change that decision.

I won't get into the discussion of mother's health or defects here. I've positions that as well, but too much for here.

My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen

If logic and reason were the means of reaching a conclusion on the abortion issue, this position would not be a reasonable one. Using the same logic one could support [strike]legalized[/strike]legalizing murder, based on the fact that murders will happen.

Many or most Christians DO support legalized murder – wars and death penalty. Simply changing the name or making excuses does not alter the support of killing.

I must make a correction to the word we've used. Murder, by definition is not legal. The correct term I believe would be legalizing murder. So, according to the above logic ( "My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen"), one would also support murder based on the fact that murders will happen -- or support rape, based on the fact that rapes happen -- support wars, based on the fact that wars happen......

Can anyone demonstrate that abortions or birth control are detrimental to societies?

Should abortions be used as birth control? Even if infanticide wasn't detrimental to societies, is that justification for killing innocent babies? In my opinion it is not justified.

If the Constitution grants the right, do you oppose the Constitution?

yes

What grounds other than religion, opinion and emotion favor denying all women the right to do what they will with their own body?

I appose abortion because "the woman" carries an innocent human being in her body she is ultimately responsible for. In my opinion to willfully take the life of another innocent human being is wrong and base this assertion on, in my opinion, self- evident truths:

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. — That 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.

By denying a woman the right to decide the fate of a fetus you are contradicting your statement that the woman is ultimately responsible for it. You've just relieved her of that responsibility. You have, however, left her with the consequences of your responsibility. That, in my mind, is unjust.

[Zzyzx]

.
Fisherking,

Earlier in this discussion you claimed to have assisted in many Cesarean Sections in which the object was to preserve life. I have asked repeatedly if those were HUMAN cesareans (because you attempted to use the claim in an argument related to human abortions). I am confident that readers consider my question to be valid and your refusal to answer to be some indication that you may have something to hide.

If the child growing in the woman depends on the woman for survival, what is the difference between it and her toddler who both equally depend on her for survival?

Correction: The toddler does NOT depend upon the mother for survival – it depends on ANY human to meet its needs. That is very different from the fetus dependency in which there is NO alternative to the mother.

The "abortion three days before birth" "argument" is a ridiculous emotional appeal. Even if you cannot recognize that, others certainly do.

Again, just because pro-abortion advocates get emotional about the issue does not make it an emotional appeal. If we should "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?(Zzyzx)", wouldn't that position cover abortions 3 days before birth?

I have made very clear that I fully support the practice of preserving the life of a fetus that is capable of surviving (with medical assistance if necessary) outside the mother's body. I do NOT favor withholding such support if there is even minimal chance that the fetus can survive.

This protects the rights of both the mother and the fetus / infant.

Can you cite statistics to show the relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions? Or, is the statement pure conjecture and opinion?

I never attempted to show a relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions. That would be a strawman fallacy, often used as an attempt to derail a debate. Would you like statistics of people alive today, born in horrible conditions, that are thankful for their lives?

I am willing to consider whatever evidence you can muster to support your claim.

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

I am not surprised.

That is strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body. "Give an inch and take a mile" applies.

How would one supporting an abortion ban be a "strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body"?

Did you overlook or deliberately ignore the words "limiting abortions will lead to even more limits" in Joey's statement and the words "Total Ban" in my statement – to which you replied that you would support such a ban?

Both Joey and I are saying that we hesitate to agree to ANY limitations since there is no assurance (or even suggestion) that opponents will not use that position to promote greater limitation.

I might favor some limitation of late term abortions IF abortion opponents were demonstrably sincere in suggesting just that much limitation.

How could one support limitating late-term abortions when one believes we should "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body"?

NOTE that I did NOT say that I DO favor limitations upon late-term abortions – ONLY that I MIGHT favor such limitations IF abortion opponents were "demonstrably sincere in suggesting just that much limitation". In other words, I am willing to consider and discuss the matter under certain conditions.

I do not think in the absolute "black and white" or "right and wrong" terms characteristic of many religionist positions. I am willing to consider the merits of some limitation of rights under some circumstances. AND I recognize that NO right of any citizen is absolute.

Although I am willing to consider the matter, I seriously doubt that abortion opponents can demonstrate sincerity in not pushing for more limitation. In other words, I have not agreed to even consider limitation UNLESS there is a demonstration of sincerity to not seek further limitation. Thus, there is little likelihood that my conditions will or can be met. However, I AM willing to consider the matter under my terms.

I am NOT willing to consider the matter if "give an inch take a mile" is the "negotiating" posture of abortion opponents.

My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen

If logic and reason were the means of reaching a conclusion on the abortion issue, this position would not be a reasonable one. Using the same logic one could support [strike]legalized[/strike]legalizing murder, based on the fact that murders will happen.

Many or most Christians DO support legalized murder – wars and death penalty. Simply changing the name or making excuses does not alter the support of killing.

I must make a correction to the word we've used. Murder, by definition is not legal. The correct term I believe would be legalizing murder. So, according to the above logic ( "My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen"), one would also support murder based on the fact that murders will happen -- or support rape, based on the fact that rapes happen -- support wars, based on the fact that wars happen......

Is it the LEGALITY that defines what you (or "Christians") support regarding killing of humans? Do you, in other words, support "legal" war and "legal" death penalty? OR do you oppose ALL killing of humans regardless of legality?

Can anyone demonstrate that abortions or birth control are detrimental to societies?

Should abortions be used as birth control?

Notice that you have made no attempt to answer my question – care to try again while others watch and evaluate? "Can anyone demonstrate that abortions or birth control are detrimental to societies?"

I am sincere enough to honestly answer your question.

I have made my position very clear on this matter. I regard abortion as a very poor form of birth control and suggest that everyone (including people at or near the age of puberty) should have readily available a wide range of information about sexuality and birth control measures AND have ready and inexpensive and un-coerced access to any and all birth control materials or devices.

Do you agree?

Even if infanticide wasn't detrimental to societies, is that justification for killing innocent babies? In my opinion it is not justified.

Are you equating "infanticide" with abortion?

A fetus or embryo is NOT an infant.

Infanticide: the killing of an infant. "Infant is defined as:

1. baby: a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
2. In basic English usage, an infant is defined as a human child at the youngest stage of life, specifically before they can walk and generally before the age of one (see also child and adolescent).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant
3. A very young human being, from birth to somewhere between six months and two years of age, needing almost constant care and/or attention; A minor
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infant
4. A person who is a minor, under the age of eighteen, and thus incapable of the independent judgment necessary to undertake a legal obligation.
www.quinterealestate.com/glossary.htm
5. refers to the age range from birth to 12 months
www.mchoralhealth.org/OpenWide/glossary.htm
6. A person not of full age, a minor. At common law, this refers to any person under the age of 21 years, male or female.
www.msa.md.gov/msa/refserv/html/legal.html
7. A person under 1 year of age.
www.pacode.com/secure/data/028/chapter1101/s1101.2.html
8. A child whose age is less than 15 months.
www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx
9. An infant enjoys playing alone. Physical movements are random and not purposeful.
www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.cfm
10. Any person not of majority or full legal age.
www.tsgraves.com/relics/legalLand.htm
11. a minor, a person not of full legal age. (This legal term does not apply only to babes in arms.)
home.att.net/~gene78687/roots/genterms.html
12. A child or minor. A person under the legal age, as defined by local law.
www.chanur.com/genealogy/library/dictionary/i.html
13. A disturber of the peace.
www.thefoolishdictionary.com/i.asp
14. A child under a year of age.
www.moondragon.org/vocabulary/i.html
15. a person not of legal age; a minor
www.duprel.com/abration.html
http://www.google.com/search

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... lekey=3424

If the Constitution grants the right, do you oppose the Constitution?

Yes

What grounds other than religion, opinion and emotion favor denying all women the right to do what they will with their own body?

I appose abortion because "the woman" carries an innocent human being in her body she is ultimately responsible for. In my opinion to willfully take the life of another innocent human being is wrong and base this assertion on, in my opinion, self- evident truths:

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. — That 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.

When it is convenient for your "argument" you quote the Constitution as though you held it in esteem or respect. However, when the Constitution conflicts with your religious beliefs you say that you oppose the Constitution. Which is it?

That is "pick and choose" Constitution – very similar to "pick and choose scriptures" and "pick and choose science" – ALL of which are illegitimate tactics used to support weak "arguments" that cannot be supported with evidence and reasoning.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 36 Page 4

I also reject this poster trying to bring in 'birthed'(so to speak) children. Trying to imply that the mother would kill her 'birthed' children because she would also chose an abortion is fallacious, irrelevant, unwarranted, and scandalous. As before, emotional appeals are not what is needed.

Please explain how it is an emotional appeal. What is the logical product of an unborn child? In my opinion there would be far fewer abortions if we hadn't dehumanized the unborn babies to begin with.

I'll let the observer decide if your equating the two is a legitimate position. From that they will decide whether your appeal is emotional or not.

Supposing a child would be born with some really horrible condition that would make its life a 'living hell', I see a certain compassion in aborting the child.

There are many children born into horrible conditions extremely thankful they were given a chance to be born.

There are many who are not.

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

I'd like to clarify this one:

From Post 35 Page 4
There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban. There is even talk now of banning birth control pills because they're considered 'pre-emptive' abortions. It is this kind of up/down thinking that concerns many.

I'd like to note a point that was not addressed:

From Post 35 Page 4
History has shown that extremes of ideology tend to become oppressive if left unchecked. This goes for the Left and the Right.

I leave it to the observer to weigh the respondent's omitting this point.

My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen

If logic and reason were the means of reaching a conclusion on the abortion issue, this position would not be a reasonable one. Using the same logic one could support legalized murder, based on the fact that murders will happen.

I trust the observer will see the invalid comparison. I think anyone would be hard pressed to so deliberatly confuse the two.

While the rich will be able to get a safe procedure, many of the poor will be left to their own devices finding a safe procedure.

Like the rich would be able to hire a better assassin, while the poor would be left murdering with a rock or broken wine bottle?.

If my position is to be so intentionally distorted again, I have no recourse but to accept the premise. Observer, don't you think it unfair the rich are better able to hire assassins? Don't you think it unfair the rich would find access to safe abortions, while the poor would be left to whatever means they can muster?

>edited cause I'm a doofus<

[Fisherking]

Fisherking,
Earlier in this discussion you claimed to have assisted in many Cesarean Sections in which the object was to preserve life. I have asked repeatedly if those were HUMAN cesareans (because you attempted to use the claim in an argument related to human abortions). I am confident that readers consider my question to be valid and your refusal to answer to be some indication that you may have something to hide.

Hmm, lets see...

An "abortion" three days before scheduled delivery is known as BIRTH. Sometimes that is accomplished by a medical procedure known as cesarean section ("surgical incision of the walls of the abdomen and uterus for delivery of offspring"). Are you unaware of such things?

my reply:

The abortion I refer to is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus".....
I have directly assisted in over 20 c - section procedures. In every instance the goal was to save the life delivered by c - section, not to terminate the life

I am still unaware of such things? What the c-sections were performed on is irrelavent. Your question was whether or not I was aware of the procedure. This is a feeble attempt to discredit me by revising the subject of debate to "he has something to hide because he won't tell us what species he assisted in performing c-sections on".
Thas is simply an irrelevant rabbit trail I'm not going to follow.

If the child growing in the woman depends on the woman for survival, what is the difference between it and her toddler who both equally depend on her for survival?

Correction: The toddler does NOT depend upon the mother for survival

Correction: In most cases the toddler does depend upon the mother for survival

– it depends on ANY human to meet its needs.

Is "any human" responsible for the welfare of that child?

I have made very clear that I fully support the practice of preserving the life of a fetus that is capable of surviving (with medical assistance if necessary) outside the mother's body. I do NOT favor withholding such support if there is even minimal chance that the fetus can survive.

allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

This protects the rights of both the mother and the fetus / infant.

In my opinion the mother and the fetus should have a right to live.

Both Joey and I are saying that we hesitate to agree to ANY limitations since there is no assurance (or even suggestion) that opponents will not use that position to promote greater limitation.

I can't say what other opponents may try to do. I would like to see everyone, including the un-born, have a chance at life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Although I am willing to consider the matter, I seriously doubt that abortion opponents can demonstrate sincerity in not pushing for more limitation.

Have I suggested any other limitations?

Is it the LEGALITY that defines what you support regarding killing of humans? Do you, in other words, support "legal" war and "legal" death penalty? OR do you oppose ALL killing of humans regardless of legality?

I'll answer the questions but won't debate them in this thread.
1. no
2. yes
3. I oppose killing the innocent.

Notice that you have made no attempt to answer my question – care to try again while others watch and evaluate? "Can anyone demonstrate that abortions or birth control are detrimental to societies?"

Sure I did:

Even if infanticide wasn't detrimental to societies, is that justification for killing innocent babies? In my opinion it is not justified.

I regard abortion as a very poor form of birth control and suggest that everyone (including people at or near the age of puberty) should have readily available a wide range of information about sexuality and birth control measures AND have ready and inexpensive and un-coerced access to any and all birth control materials or devices.
Do you agree?

yes

A fetus or embryo is NOT an infant. [/b]
Infanticide: the killing of an infant. "Infant is defined as:

2. In basic English usage, an infant is defined as a human child at the youngest stage of life, specifically before they can walk and generally before the age of one (see also child and adolescent).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant

4. A person who is a minor, under the age of eighteen, and thus incapable of the independent judgment necessary to undertake a legal obligation.
www.quinterealestate.com/glossary.htm

6. A person not of full age, a minor. At common law, this refers to any person under the age of 21 years, male or female.
www.msa.md.gov/msa/refserv/html/legal.html
7. A person under 1 year of age.
www.pacode.com/secure/data/028/chapter1101/s1101.2.html
8. A child whose age is less than 15 months.
www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx
9. An infant enjoys playing alone. Physical movements are random and not purposeful.
www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.cfm
10. Any person not of majority or full legal age.
www.tsgraves.com/relics/legalLand.htm
11. a minor, a person not of full legal age. (This legal term does not apply only to babes in arms.)
home.att.net/~gene78687/roots/genterms.html
12. A child or minor. A person under the legal age, as defined by local law.
www.chanur.com/genealogy/library/dictionary/i.html
14. A child under a year of age.
www.moondragon.org/vocabulary/i.html
15. a person not of legal age; a minor
www.duprel.com/abration.html
http://www.google.com/search

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... lekey=3424

Child

1 a: an unborn or recently born person bdialect : a female infant
2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth b: a childlike or childish person c: a person not yet of age
3usually childe \ˈchī(-ə)ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a: a son or daughter of human parents b: descendant
5: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6: product , result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb
(MW)

Person

1: human , individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson><spokesperson>
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being ; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5: the personality of a human being : self
6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
(MW)

According to the above information, a fetus can still be considered an infant. Looks like the pro-abortionists will have to work on that one. If they can define the unborn as something other than human, they have successfully "dehumanized" the object of infanticide.

[catalyst]

I have to take on the comment made by Fisherking as to "abortion" 3 days prior to birth as well and allegedly having assisted in c-sections, assuming at this point the c-sections he has assisted were of human beings.

Hmm... an assisted c-section, that you were a willing party to. Now isn't a c-section a Physician suggested and/patient agreed upon procedure for the most part? Where is the RIGHT of the unborn in this scenario to be born when it decides to be born?

[Zzyzx]

.

What the c-sections were performed on is irrelavent.

In a discussion of abortion when one claims experience doing or assisting Cesarean Sections it DOES make a difference if those were done on farm animals or pets vs. humans.

It might be viewed as a strong point in favor of your "argument" if you had actually assisted in human cesarean sections. However, it does not appear as though that was the case (as most realize from your refusal to give a straight answer).

Thas is simply an irrelevant rabbit trail I'm not going to follow.

I understand that you would not want to discuss what animals were involved in the experience you claim. There is no need to say anything more.

Thank you.

If the child growing in the woman depends on the woman for survival, what is the difference between it and her toddler who both equally depend on her for survival?

Correction: The toddler does NOT depend upon the mother for survival

Correction: In most cases the toddler does depend upon the mother for survival

We are all aware that in MANY cases infants (or toddlers) are cared for by people OTHER than the mother. That is my point. The mother is NOT essential after birth. An infant or toddler can survive very well without care by a mother, provided that it receives care from someone.

A fetus, until a certain stage of development, cannot survive without the mother. Thus the mother IS essential for the fetus.

Do you actually not understand the difference?

– it depends on ANY human to meet its needs.

Is "any human" responsible for the welfare of that child?

As is stated above, no one person (or a mother) is required for an infant or toddler to survive – provided that care is furnished by ANY person. Which person is "responsible" is not in question.

Do you NOT understand that someone other than the mother can care for a child?

I have made very clear that I fully support the practice of preserving the life of a fetus that is capable of surviving (with medical assistance if necessary) outside the mother's body. I do NOT favor withholding such support if there is even minimal chance that the fetus can survive.

allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

You indicate confusion about this. I will respond as though I thought you really did not understand . . . .

In my stated opinion / position, the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. If the fetus can survive outside the mother's body, I favor rendering medical support.

I am not in favor of refusing support if survival is reasonably possible. I am also NOT in favor of anyone dictating to a woman what she must do with the insides of her body. I realize that you claim that a woman should be forced to do as YOU decide with regards to pregnancy; however, I disagree with good reason.

Although I am willing to consider the matter, I seriously doubt that abortion opponents can demonstrate sincerity in not pushing for more limitation.

Have I suggested any other limitations?

Yes. I mentioned willingness to consider some limitations on late-term abortions provided that no further restrictions would be sought. You appear to insist upon a total ban. Do you understand that a total ban is more limiting than "some limitations on late-term abortions?

According to the above information, a fetus can still be considered an infant.

Opinions and definitions differ. The LAW favors abortion while religion usually opposes abortion. In this country the law is superior to religion – fortunately.

Notice that abortion is LEGAL in the US (since 1973) and in other nations.

Is it the LEGALITY that defines what you support regarding killing of humans? Do you, in other words, support "legal" war and "legal" death penalty? OR do you oppose ALL killing of humans regardless of legality?

I'll answer the questions but won't debate them in this thread.
1. no
2. yes
3. I oppose killing the innocent.

I have started another thread and encourage you to explain your position.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#203113

[Fisherking]

In my stated opinion / position, the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. If the fetus can survive outside the mother's body, I favor rendering medical support.
I am not in favor of refusing support if survival is reasonably possible. I am also NOT in favor of anyone dictating to a woman what she must do with the insides of her body. I realize that you claim that a woman should be forced to do as YOU decide with regards to pregnancy; however, I disagree with good reason.

In my opinion, killing an innocent human being because it is "unwanted" is wrong, regardless of its age.
I am still interested in what your "good reason" is.

[JoeyKnothead]

On Fisherking's presence/performing/assisting in many c-sections. Zzyzx asks several times if these were on humans. We finally get an answer that at least references the question.

Page 5 Post 44

What the c-sections were performed on is irrelavent.

After repeated requests to clarify the nature of these c-sections, this is as close as we get to a reply.
I'll point out to the observer some of the other 'sins of omission' that have occured in this thread. When someone is unwilling to reply to a question, or they omit key elements in their reply, we can look at that as a measure of the claimant's conviction in the claims they are making. If we find the claimant is obfuscating, deliberately misrepresenting, or outright omitting key elements of the debate, we can judge the veracity of their claims by such. If the claimant themself would rather an observer be confused as to the nature of the claimant's claims, then the observer could legitimately dismiss this and other deceitful claims we'll see in a spell.
In a debate where the topic is abortion, and where any rational person would see a claim of assisting in c-sections with no further clarification as happening to humans, the observer is cautioned that other claims made should be weighted in accord with the severity of the attempt at distortion.
Continuing...

...(snipped out a reply to a different question)...This is a feeble attempt to discredit me by revising the subject of debate to "he has something to hide because he won't tell us what species he assisted in performing c-sections on".

(I note there could be a legitimate misunderstanding about the snipped part, I've done so for brevity. My point is repeated requests for information were left unanswered.)
When one would imply by omission (human) c-sections were witnessed/performed, the discrediting is complete. Any further attempts to do so would be redundant.

Both Joey and I are saying that we hesitate to agree to ANY limitations since there is no assurance (or even suggestion) that opponents will not use that position to promote greater limitation.

I can't say what other opponents may try to do. I would like to see everyone, including the un-born, have a chance at life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Au contraire mon friar...
(friar, get it?)
From Page 5 Post 36

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

Now let's look what was, drum roll please.......
omitted.

From Post 35 Page 4
There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban. There is even talk now of banning birth control pills because they're considered 'pre-emptive' abortions. It is this kind of up/down thinking that concerns many.

I ask the observer, does the omission lead you to believe this poster would seek to restrict the underlined?
In stating one reason for my support for abortion, I also said:

From Post 35 Page 4
History has shown that extremes of ideology tend to become oppressive if left unchecked. This goes for the Left and the Right.

This point as well was not addressed when the reply was made. It's my contention, in light of what I've pointed out above, this poster would be one of them 'oppressors' if we do not do our dead level best to maintain a moderate centrism in society, government, and abortion policies.

[JoeyKnothead]

I thought this might shine some light on the deal.
I know we ain't supposed to debate slippery slopes, but danged if Colorado aint doing it...

From:
Ammendment declares fertilized egg a person in the eyes of law even before implantation in the uterus

Sorry bout the cut and paste, just laying groundwork for discussion...

Here's the proposed state amendment: Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

A proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would define a human egg as a "person" from the moment of fertilization would go far beyond its intended purpose of outlawing practically all abortions.

...Should a woman who suffers a miscarriage be charged with negligent homicide because she failed to protect a fertilized egg she may not have even known she carried?

Should a man who fertilized an egg be entitled to file a civil lawsuit against a woman who miscarries, charging her with the wrongful death of his week-old fertilized egg?

And we see an inch is indeed equal to a mile.

[Fallibleone]

While you are looking at innocent human lives, you might perhaps like to think about the innocent human life of the woman who has been raped being forced to carry a child she never asked for and which she must deliver through no fault of her own. How do you feel about that?

I would sympathize with a woman who had to go through such an ordeal. I would not support killing her un-born child because she may experience pain in carrying or delivering that child though.

The pain experienced would not simply be physical. It would be emotional and mental also. And it would not end with the birth. The emotional and mental pain would continue, the woman having a permanent reminder of what had happened to her. It is possible that this will impact on the child too, causing him or her emotional and mental pain which may continue throughout his or her life.

What would you have a woman who is likely to die in or before childbirth do with hr pregnancy?

Why is the woman's life more important that the childs life?

Thanks for not answering the question. Have another go.

Thats a tough one, though not a large percentage of abortions. If the pregnancy was to result in the possible death of the woman and child, if the child was not removed, I would support delivering that child (live) and doing all possible to save its life outside of the mother.

And if the foetus is in the early stages of development and its presence is a danger to the woman? If you leave the foetus there it's death to the mother, and if you remove it it is death to the foetus. Which would you choose?

In answer to your question, which I can now bring myself to answer, having first had to get up from my chair and pace a while, then come back and double check to make sure I had actually read that correctly, the woman's life is more important than the life of a zygote, embrio or foetus because she is ACTUALLY ALIVE.

If the zygote, embryo, and fetus are not alive are they dead?

No. Before 'you' were alive, were you dead?

If they are not human beings, what species are they?

Before you existed what species were you?

If they are human beings, should't they possess human rights also?

If they are human beings, they possess rights. Are they human beings? At what point?

But I am still not sure why you would seem to deny the human rights of a demonstrably alive human being, when it seems as though human rights are so important to you. Can you explain?