Untruths, anyone?

happybrew · 09-10-2003, 10:44 PM

It's truly amazing. At the NARAL website,
here

It lists under "acts of violence" something ominous sounding called a "butyric acid attack". Sounds vicious, doesn't it? However, all it is is a stinkbomb. Butyric acid is the component of body odor that makes it stink. Is it harrassment? Yes. Is it violence? No. Leave it to the NARAL people to put a stinkbomb on the same level as a murder. The next time you hear about "violence against abortion providers" with some horrific number, just remember that those numbers are heavily padded, and include things like stinkbombs.

happybrew

happybrew

ORrinker · 09-11-2003, 06:16 AM

While I wholeheartedly disagree with all that NARAL holds dear I do think that any violence against any abortion doctors or clinics makes a person no better than the people they abhor.

I agree that they do pad there numbers to bolster their position. I bet it is real helpful in their fundraisers too?

Putting the number of stinkbombs thrown at them is a bit ridiculous but who ever said these people are playing with a full deck.

I think their sense of right and wrong is a little bit twisted. Throwing a stinkbomb is wrong but murdering children is not???

Randy

Thumper · 09-11-2003, 06:45 AM

[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

lost_sailor · 09-11-2003, 07:49 AM

"acts of violence and/or disruption"

don't forget to read ALL of the WORDS

BonkBonkBonk · 09-11-2003, 08:22 AM

lies, damned lies and statistics!

DanS · 09-11-2003, 08:54 AM

So you're gonna talk about stinkbombs and NOT the 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 166 arsons............

A murderer is a murderer.....an arsonist is an arsonist and I don't give a rip what their reasons are.

Yeah let's release this stuff and call ourselves heroes.

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BU/butyric_acid.html

[ 09-11-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: DanS ]

Thumper · 09-11-2003, 09:51 AM

This post is not meant to attack or infuriate anyone. Please don't take it that way. I think it is one of the most challenging ethical (if you don't believe in God) or moral (if you do believe in God) issues of our civilization.

Many people consider abortion as murder. Their belief is sincere. They are not nutcases. They simply believe that a fetus is a human life, and taking that life is killing a human being; i.e., murder. A totally sincere belief.

If you are one who sincerely believes that way, and are thus aware that someone (from your perspective) is murdering innocents, and does it for a living, what are your moral options?

A fascinating, terrifying issue.

DanS · 09-11-2003, 10:07 AM

Vigilanteism is wrong, Jack.

If you think the death penalty is state-sponsored murder, and you shoot yourself a prison warden or judge, then you are a murderer. Simple as that.

There's no difference on any moral OR ethical level.

happybrew · 09-11-2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ORrinker:
While I wholeheartedly disagree with all that NARAL holds dear I do think that any violence against any abortion doctors or clinics makes a person no better than the people they abhor.

Randy

I agree. In fact, even throwing stinkbombs is just plain dumb and childish. It is not an act of love. The guy who was executed recently for murdering an abortion doctor, while I disagree with the death penalty, certainly deserved severe punishment for what he did. Prayer is a far more effective, and certainly a moral means of closing abortion clinics. It worked in Eugene. The abortion clinic there was closed by weekly prayer vigils outside. Those who resort to violence embrace what they claim they are fighting, and all they get is a fight on their hands, not the end that they seek. You can fight against violence. You can't fight against prayer.

happybrew

happybrew · 09-11-2003, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
"acts of violence and/or disruption"

don't forget to read ALL of the WORDS

Thank you for reading them for me. I missed that. I surfed in there, and the links promised me statistics on violence. I went right for the statistics, and didn't read what was above them. That's what most people would do, and that's what NARAL was counting on. However, don't you think that's a clever way of padding the statistics, by including dissimilar events and lumping them together to get to the 80,000 mark? How many people do you think know what butyric acid is? Not many. Had I not taken organic chemistry in college, I wouldn't either. Sounds horrendous, and makes people think people are getting chemical burns. All it does is stink, though. The chemicals, and the statistics.

happybrew

happybrew · 09-11-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS:
So you're gonna talk about stinkbombs and NOT the 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 166 arsons............

A murderer is a murderer.....an arsonist is an arsonist and I don't give a rip what their reasons are.

Yeah let's release this stuff and call ourselves heroes. http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BU/butyric_acid.html

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Dan. However, my beef is with what they use to come up with a figure of 80,000. I found some additional information on how they come to that figure.

from Human Life International,

"But let us take a closer look at NAF's numbers.

To begin with, 66,391 of the incidents it mentions are picketing. This means that picketing comprises 83 percent of the total incidents of "violence and disruption" at abortion mills. This is a classic expression of pro-abortion hypocrisy: It is perfectly all right if pro-aborts picket, but the so-called 'Feminist Majority Foundation' classifies pro-life "home picketing" as "an incident of extreme violence." FMF's Web site also identifies the leafleting of abortionist's neighborhoods as an incident of "violence." Next we have what NAF calls "hate mail & harassing phone calls." These account for another 9,728 incidents, or 12 percent of NAF's total. Let us remember that pro-abortionists, in addition to being polished hypocrites, are expert at playing the victim. In several cases, abortion mill owners have called Christmas cards mailed by pro-lifers "hate mail."

So there we have it: 95 percent of the incidents of "anti-choice violence and disruption" listed by the National Abortion Federation are picketing, unwanted "hate" mail, and phone calls. The number of incidents of extreme violence listed by NAF - murder and attempted murder, bombings, arsons, attempted bombings and arsons, kidnapping, and assaults - total 439, or about one-half of one percent of the total." This can be found
here

I'll see if I can find a NAL primary source telling us what their statistics include and post it.

happybrew

[ 09-11-2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

happybrew · 09-11-2003, 05:10 PM

Okay, here it is. Go here, the NAF website , click on clinic violence, then violence statistics. Note, they are telling us that they are giving statistics, not on behavior they find annoying, but VIOLENCE. When that page opens, you will find the old bait and switch. It now says Incidents of Violence and Distruption. They now divide it into two parts to get their number, "violence", and disruption. The largest number under "violence" is "vandalism". Since when was grafitti an act of violence? It accounts for roughly a quarter of what is listed under "violence". Third biggest under "violence" is "trespassing". Since when is trespassing "violence"? The fact of the matter is, they include a whole bunch of non-violent acts, and it gets lumped together as 80,000 acts of "violence and disruption", which then becomes 80,000 acts of "violence". The NAF and the NARAL are dishonest. You wouldn't put up with that sort of garbage from an auto dealership. Why should we put up with it from someone trying to influence how we vote?

happybrew

DanS · 09-11-2003, 08:10 PM

hb,

As usual, you are level-headed and well spoken again. I agree that deceptive tactics are being used here.

Still, not everyone is level-headed like you are and clinic violence is obviously real enough that 7 people are dead. It's a problem and I'm not surprised that NARAL tries to make it sound as bad as they can.

This is a perfect example of why one needs to look at studies/statistics/reports a little closer sometimes to get at the nitty gritty.

Silver Hilton · 09-12-2003, 03:23 PM

Thumper,

I agree with you. Abortion is the issue that it is precisely because of the deep felt sincerity of belief felt by both sides of the battle.

I am pro choice. However, I don't think the pro choice movement, or society at large has dealt well with the fundamental issue. Abortion is about terminating a life. It is often about terminating a life so that another person can be relieved of the burden of raising the child. One could say that that is a luxury decision and therefore morally suspect. I haven't fully resolved that question for myself, yet.

The problem I see with the issue is fundamentally one of economics. If we as a world were so wealthy, and so developed, and social institutions existed so that any child that was born could be raised well and have a loving and reasonably happy childhood, I'd feel differently than I do.

The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are obtained by women who are single and not economically well established. It's a reasonable conclusion that these children, if born, are not going into two parent households that would have the means to raise them well.

I read a paper recently that gave an interesting perspective. It was by Steven Levitt, studying the relation between abortion and crime rates. He posits that the drop in crime rates enjoyed broadly across the US throughout the 90's was largely due to Roe v Wade. He showed pretty convincingly that the areas that had legal abortion before 1973 started experiencing lower crime rates before the areas where abortion was made legal in 1973. You can read the paper here.

His thesis is that the abortions likely were obtained by women who, had they borne these children, would have raised them in circumstances more likely to lead to a life of crime. Poorer education, poorer economic circumstances, single parenting, dysfunctional lifestyles would likely be their fate. The conclusion is that ready access to abortion reduced the criminal population, and therefore crime rates.

This study and other information like it leads me to believe that these many of these babies who are being killed (I believe in calling it what it is) are at great risk of growing up in deprived circumstances, and are not likely to enjoy life. I know, not my right to judge, but c'mon. Do any us think it's a picnic to be raised by a drug addicted prostitute? Or even a church going high school graduate single mom stuck in a minimum wage job?

So that makes it a harder question for me. Is it more moral to save the baby's life, without solving the question of how will the baby prosper? We'd like to say that the woman should have thought of that before getting pregnant, and that is certainly true. But then we're just trying to punish the woman, and, we should not forget, her child and society, too, for her poor choices.

As a society, we tend to avoid the hard decisions and go for the easy emotional solution. In the abortion debate, the pro-choice folks haven't processed the fact that abortion is killing. The anti's haven't processed the fact that many, if not most of these children would lead lives of miserable poverty if born.

lost_sailor · 09-12-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happybrew:
Why should we put up with it from someone trying to influence how we vote?

Yeah ... like the other side always tells both sides of the story in a "fair and balanced" manner.

happybrew · 09-12-2003, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
[Yeah ... like the other side always tells both sides of the story in a "fair and balanced" manner.

"Fair" and "balanced" do not necessarily go together. As an example, in a discussion of the *** , Aryan Nations, or Identity movements, being "balanced", and presenting their version of the way the world is as if it has any credibility would in itself be racist, and would thus not be "fair" at all. Can you imagine explaining a lynching as if it really matters why the *** did it?

This is a clear moral issue on which we can all agree. However, the abortion issue has been framed in similar terms, rightly or wrongly. It has resulted in some pretty bad behavior by both sides. Besides the violence committed by a small number of pro-life groups and individuals, there has been perjury committed by some pro-abortion groups, revealed by members who left, which resulted in court decisions that jailed large numbers of protesters for simply exercising their constitutional rights like any other group would.

There are a growing number of pro-life organizations that are moving away from that approach, however, at least in regards to the women who have the abortions. They are starting to be seen as victims, and given some of the whoppers put out by NARAL, NAL, and NOW, I believe that this is the correct approach. Demonizing the opposition, while it might make for stirring rhetoric, only polarizes people and hardens their positions. A softer approach being taken by some groups these days has resulted in many abortion industry workers switching sides and working for the pro-life cause. Unfortunately, not all groups take that approach because it is a much more difficult course to navigate. It's much easier to demonize the opposition, but it's not nearly as effective. However, as more and more pro-life groups take the softer approach, I think more and more workers will leave the abortion industry, accomplishing in fact what legislation will not accomplish when the two sides are highly polarized.

happybrew

STGRule · 09-12-2003, 04:59 PM

That is an interesting theory to me about why workers are leaving the field. I was under the impression that there are a number of reasons that may be at work. First, abortions are down in general. Since there is not an increase in births there has to be a reason other than women are having babies instead of abortions. I attribute that to a number of causes. Birth control is getting to the people that need it, some insurance companies are now covering birth control, welfare reform is making it harder to just have babies without thought, and malpractice insurance is driving doctors away from obstetrics in general. I would be interested to hear why you think workers are leaving.

roadsend · 09-12-2003, 05:15 PM

Silver Hilton,

"This study and other information like it leads me to believe that these many of these babies who are being killed (I believe in calling it what it is) are at great risk of growing up in deprived circumstances, and are not likely to enjoy life."

If we used this criterion to decide life or death we would have to kill more than 1/2 the people in the world.

Maybe we could just say that a fetus is 3/5 of a person. I seem to remember the supreme court doing something like this before.

2LEYS · 09-12-2003, 06:55 PM

Quote:

I am pro choice. However, I don't think the pro choice movement, or society at large has dealt well with the fundamental issue. Abortion is about terminating a life.

I honestly have never heard a pro choicer admit that it is taking a life or in other words, killing a human being.

Quote:

The problem I see with the issue is fundamentally one of economics. If we as a world were so wealthy, and so developed, and social institutions existed so that any child that was born could be raised well and have a loving and reasonably happy childhood, I'd feel differently than I do.

The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are obtained by women who are single and not economically well established. It's a reasonable conclusion that these children, if born, are not going into two parent households that would have the means to raise them well.

So in other words, it is OK to kill if you a saving someone from a potentially poor life. So if a woman is arrested for a crime then we should put her in rehab and then kill all of her children because they are obviously living a miserable life.

Quote:

I read a paper recently that gave an interesting perspective. It was by Steven Levitt, studying the relation between abortion and crime rates. He posits that the drop in crime rates enjoyed broadly across the US throughout the 90's was largely due to Roe v Wade. He showed pretty convincingly that the areas that had legal abortion before 1973 started experiencing lower crime rates before the areas where abortion was made legal in 1973. You can read the paper here.

His thesis is that the abortions likely were obtained by women who, had they borne these children, would have raised them in circumstances more likely to lead to a life of crime. Poorer education, poorer economic circumstances, single parenting, dysfunctional lifestyles would likely be their fate. The conclusion is that ready access to abortion reduced the criminal population, and therefore crime rates.

So by this logic we could also kill all the babies in high crime areas to further reduce the crime rates. Or how about just all the babies of minorities because statisticly they have a higher chance of living a life of crime.

Quote:

So that makes it a harder question for me. Is it more moral to save the baby's life, without solving the question of how will the baby prosper? We'd like to say that the woman should have thought of that before getting pregnant, and that is certainly true. But then we're just trying to punish the woman, and, we should not forget, her child and society, too, for her poor choices.

You sure as hell don't punish the baby.

[ 09-12-2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

happybrew · 09-12-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STGRule:
That is an interesting theory to me about why workers are leaving the field. I was under the impression that there are a number of reasons that may be at work. First, abortions are down in general. Since there is not an increase in births there has to be a reason other than women are having babies instead of abortions. I attribute that to a number of causes. Birth control is getting to the people that need it, some insurance companies are now covering birth control, welfare reform is making it harder to just have babies without thought, and malpractice insurance is driving doctors away from obstetrics in general. I would be interested to hear why you think workers are leaving.

I don't have any hard statistics to quote, but from anecdotal evidence I've heard, there are a number of factors at work.

1. Malpractice insurance. The cost of insurance is rising rapidly. On the other hand, abortion is a very profitable medical practice to be in, which would tend to work against that as a factor. Many abortion providers, however, are not the most highly skilled practitioners of their field, however, and go into that practice because they cannot find jobs elsewhere. When they injure a woman, or several, they often cannot find any insurance at all. There are many pro-life activists who research the malpractice records of abortion doctors, and their ability to get insurance, and attempt to inform the community of the records of those doctors so that potential clients can make a more fully informed choice. This is a matter of public record. It makes it difficult for an abortionist to establish a practice, and decreases the supply of providers.

2. Low employee retention. Many people go to into the abortion industry for ideological reasons. They find out that it's not what they thought it would be. Let's face it. It's a gruesome business. It is very difficult to see babies, particularly late term aborted babies, in that situation, no matter what one's ideology is. Many times, after seeing it over and over again, employees will actually become pro-life, and go over to the other side, although I don't know how many, or will simply get out of the practice. This tends to decrease the supply of abortions, as it is hard to actually find people to do them. If you've seen photos of aborted babies, particularly a large number of them in one place, and in the condition that an abortion leaves them, as would occur in a clinic, it's a hard thing to take. Seeing it in person would be much worse. It would take a sociopath not to be affected.

3. An increasing majority of Americans are personally against abortion, although not all of those favor its abolition. This is a societal change that decreases the demand.

4. In addition, as you pointed out, the use of birth control has had some effect. However, birth control is not always effective. My wife and I had two of our children when we were using birth control, including Depo Provera. We no longer use birth control, and are much happier for it. It's my belief, though, that the advent of birth control led to a mass objectification of women by men, and a separation of marital relations from actual marriage and family structures, and within marriage between marital relations and procreation that led to the demand for abortion to begin with. Marriage should involve a mutual and whole self-giving between spouses. Women's bodies are wonderful things, but the birth control process implicitly gives the idea that there is something wrong with a woman's body when it functions in a normal, healthy way. When men objectify women, and don't desire the normal healthy functioning of their bodies, and when women buy into the notion that the normal healthy functioning of their bodies makes them less desireable as people, particularly to men, then pregnancy is not seen as a blessing but as a problem. Thus, when my wife was pregnant with our third child, the response of her family was not "Congratulations! How wonderful!", but "Oh... so what are you going to do?" My belief is that the advent of birth control led to an increased demand in abortions, and its only its increasing effectiveness that has tended to mitigate that result.
I think that both the supply of providers, and the demand for abortions has contracted in the United States, this is a good thing. The situation is not the same in other countries. In Russia, where abortion was used as a method of birth control under the Communists, the average woman has had five of them. In China, abortions are enforced as a matter of state policy. Worldwide, there are certain agencies of the UN seeking to increase both the supply and demand of abortions, so the United States is really an anomoly in that respect. Western Europe has a birth rate far below replacement rate, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Europeans to be minorities in their own countries due to immigration to supply workers when I'm old and gray. We run the same risk, as as the birth rate in the U.S. is below replacement rate as well. It is pretty much increases in longevity, and immigration that have led to an increase in population.

happybrew

2LEYS · 09-12-2003, 07:53 PM

Here is a truely informative web page. For anyone who doesn't think it is a baby go look at the pictures. But be warned they are gruesome.

web page

[ 09-12-2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

STGRule · 09-12-2003, 09:18 PM

Happybrew: Let me digest and get back to you. 2leys: We have been very polite and helpful up to this point. Please don't throw sand in each other�s faces. Let�s do facts and reasons and explanations.

There was never any doubt it is a mass of cells, well on it's way to being a viable human.

[ 09-12-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

2LEYS · 09-13-2003, 06:49 AM

Quote:

2leys: We have been very polite and helpful up to this point. Please don't throw sand in each other�s faces. Let�s do facts and reasons and explanations

I don't see where I threw any sand. I was responding directly to one person without attacking them.

[ 09-13-2003, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

Silver Hilton · 09-13-2003, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
I honestly have never heard a pro choicer admit that it is taking a life or in other words, killing a human being.

You just did.

Quote:

So in other words, it is OK to kill if you a saving someone from a potentially poor life.

I think you're missing the point. Violent crime took a sharp and continuing drop after abortion was legalized. Besides leading miserable lives, many of those aborted babies would have grown up to be violent criminals. No, I'm not saying that justifies abortion, it simply supports the belief that these babies would not have led the loved, cared for existence that my children have.

2Leys, I think you missed the essense of my post, which was that the abortion issue is complicated. The prochoicers haven't dealt forthrightly with the issue that a child's heart stops. The Pro-lifers, amply demonstrated by your post, haven't dealt with the question of what to do with the babies that would be born. That's what I am getting at with the economics issue.

You say that you don't want to punish the child for the mothers poor choices. Well, for many of these women, demanding that they give birth would be punishment for the child, and for the people that the child runs into throughout life.

Let's bring up a real life example. Are those two girls in Merlin better off having been born?

I'm not fervent about the issue, unlike many folks. I can see both viewpoints. (This following statement will draw fire) However, out of the same mental foundation that tells me that sometimes an animal must be put down, I can understand that there are cases where it is kinder not to have the child be born. Until the pro-life team deals with that truth, they have the moral strength of someone who lets their dog have puppies and then leaves the puppies by the side of the road.

2LEYS · 09-13-2003, 07:58 AM

I can see your point. And I think you are being very reasonable and honest.

I think those girls were better off being born. They have their whole lives ahead off them.

But I do see where you are coming from although I disagree with you.

So you say some kids would be better off not being born. What about the kids who would have been better off being born. Is it OK to say that they are just unfortunate casualties. Even though they would have prospered and contributed to society that it is OK. My point is that you can not decide before hand weather a child would be happy or not. ALL PEOPLE ARE GUARENTEED THE PURSIUT OF HAPPINESS in this country. They are not guarenteed happiness but the pursuit of it. And What about a 2 year old who obviously is living a miserable and unhappy life. Can we end his suffering? No difference to me. And how many great people had a terrible childhood.

2LEYS · 09-13-2003, 10:00 AM

Also, I do not have any facts or stats to back this up. But I do not think the majority of abortions are done by crack head poor women. What does an abortion cost? $500? $1000? I don't beleive the Oregon health plan would pay for one (I would be P.O.'d if it did) but the Oregon Health plan covers labor and delivery. Most of those types seem to have 5 kids. The more kids they have the more money they get from welfare. I think the majority of abortions are done by 20-30 year old college type or working women with decent to excellent jobs. They don't want the burden at this point in their precious lives.

So I don't buy into the lower crime rate.

Silver Hilton · 09-13-2003, 04:26 PM

2leys,

The lower crime rate association is demonstrated to the point where no scientist knowledgable of statistics is likely to argue with the conclusion. You can choose to disbelieve it if you wish, but the guy who published the paper is one of the most respected social scientists in the US, if not the world. The paper has been peer reviewed, which means that a whole bunch of similar scientists looked at it to determine whether the science and math was solid. So, it's more reasonable to trust the conclusion than to disbelieve it.

Beyond that, it just makes sense. Women who are functional, in stable relationships, who are emotionally stable and well adjusted, tend to not get unwanted pregnancies. Women who are drug addicted, in marginal relationships, who can't afford birth control, who are more poorly educated, and who have fewer resources are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies. They are also likely to be poorer candidates for parenthood.

I'm not going to argue whether or not these children will grow up to be happy. Obviously at least some few of them might, but the evidence suggests that they will be the exception rather than the rule. It's true without a shadow of a doubt that most of them will grow up impoverished, with poor social skills, and poor job prospects. If you think that the slight chance for happiness warrants bringing them into the world, OK. I just don't think it's doing them any great favors.

And in addition to not doing them any favors, if we were to force them to be born, it has now been shown that the rest of society will suffer, due to increased crime.

My 2 cents. I'm done with this topic.

happybrew · 09-13-2003, 04:39 PM

SH:

The biggest predictor of crime is not having a father in the home. Single women are more likely to have abortions, ergo, the crime rate drops. However it shouldn't be said that this is a good solution. Killing the toddlers of single women would accomplish the same end. Sterilizing women who have sex outside of marriage would accomplish the same end. If one is looking for some good out of abortion, this is not it. You could do any number of things to keep single women from having children. If one wishes to argue that the children are being spared some sort of misery, why stop with abortion? Why not give the woman the choice to kill their child up to the age of one year if things aren't working out? Obviously it would accomplish the same end, and in not too different a manner than abortion. If it's not wrong to kill the baby within the womb in order to spare the child potential misery, why would it be wrong to kill the baby outside the womb in order to spare the child potential misery? Sounds scary, doesn't it? But it's the same moral reasoning. I challenge you to find one difference between a baby within the womb and a baby out of the womb that would make a moral difference.

Obviously, it's wrong to kill babies after birth. It's wrong for the same reason to kill them before birth.

happybrew

2LEYS · 09-13-2003, 07:27 PM

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

lost_sailor · 09-14-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by happybrew:
I challenge you to find one difference between a baby within the womb and a baby out of the womb that would make a moral difference.

Umm ... the inability to breath, eat, or otherwise survive?

I love the way MEN can argue about abortion ... you know, we'll never have one.

Just like arguing religion, trying to impose our personal moral values on another person. Doesn't seem right.

"If you don't like abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE."

2LEYS · 09-14-2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Umm ... the inability to breath, eat, or otherwise survive?

So if a child can not breath on its own after birth than we have the right to kill it? So by this logic it is ok to kill a 35 year old handicapped person.

Quote:

Just like arguing religion, trying to impose our personal moral values on another person. Doesn't seem right.

Murder was a "personal moral value" that society turned into law. A child can be killed by abortion at gestational ages that the child is viable.

lost_sailor · 09-14-2003, 12:26 PM

How did you get "after birth" from my "in the womb" comment ?

You won't get me to argue for "late-term" abortion. I can easily draw the line there.

2LEYS · 09-14-2003, 03:38 PM

So tell me, where exactly do you draw the line and why?

happybrew · 09-14-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
[Umm ... the inability to breath, eat, or otherwise survive?

I love the way MEN can argue about abortion ... you know, we'll never have one.

Just like arguing religion, trying to impose our personal moral values on another person. Doesn't seem right.

"If you don't like abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE." [/QB]

1. So if your one year old stopped breathing, would your child cease to be a human person with all of the rights therof? And would you refrain from suing a doctor for wrongful death if he didn't do CPR?

2. Sure the baby eats. Infants in the womb swallow amniotic fluid, and after they are born, but before they have eaten and digested food, they defecate. However, if your one year old were unable to eat, and had to be fed intravenously, which is the function of the umbilical cord, would your one year old stop being a human person?

3. Would you expect your one year old to survive without an enormous expenditure of energy feeding, clothing, and sheltering her/him? By contrast, it is far easier to care for a baby in the womb, as it's all done automatically by the mother's body. A one year old child cannot survive on its own, plain and simple.

4. Abortion is certainly a men's issue, because parenting is a men's issue. I know this may come as a shock to some, but the male role in the family is not to sit on the couch drinking beer, watching football, and going fishing/hunting with the guys. It is to parent. Yet you would forfeit the entire male role in parenting at the get-go, when the woman is pregnant. Now I'm sure you're a very good parent, LS, but didn't you have some imput into whether or not to be a parent? Why would you have your parental rights taken away without your say?

happybrew