Christian fundamentalist lunatics in the conservative party equate Abo

[cybercoma]

That's a pretty cynical approach then. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems and compromising.

You're arguing a false equivalence. Compromise does not necessarily mean the right answer is halfway between the two extremes. One side could just be wrong.

[cybercoma]

And Cybercoma is saying that not resolving the problem with a compromise prevents the RIGHT from getting an advantage.

Pro-choice is not a left-right issue. People are unwilling to compromise women's right to have full control over their bodies and reproductive choices. There is no compromising that.

[cybercoma]

There is a silent holocaust taking place in our society

Yeah, yeah I am sure I will be chastized for paralleling the Jewish holocaust w/abortion... and frankly I don't care because there is a blatant basic connection outlned above between the two that is very apparent.

No. It's not apparent and calling women nazis for wanting control over their own bodies and having the choice of when they will have children or not is not only wrong, but it's completely insulting and ignorant.

[Michael Hardner]

You're arguing a false equivalence. Compromise does not necessarily mean the right answer is halfway between the two extremes. One side could just be wrong.

But you yourself said otherwise by making this about the political optics.

[Michael Hardner]

Pro-choice is not a left-right issue. People are unwilling to compromise women's right to have full control over their bodies and reproductive choices. There is no compromising that.

You were talking about political realities before, now you're talking about one side's framing of the issue.

[cybercoma]

Everybody can tell that a fertilized egg and a baby about to be born are not the same thing - so why do some pro-choice and pro-life people argue that very thing.

The actual answer I have to this is that I don't know why people argue it because it doesn't matter. Zygote to fetus to infant, it's still human. Pro-life people argue about this because if they can get a fetus defined as a person under law (not a human being, it's always a human being), then they can have women who choose to have their fertility controlled arrested for murder. They're interested in saving the lives of all these fetuses, but have absolutely no interest in implementing any sort of support programs for children in poverty or families that cannot properly raise their children for whatever reason. Pro-choice people argue about it for the same reason. It's about legal personhood. They see it as a fundamental right that a woman be able to choose how her body is used and only the woman chooses this, not the government or someone else. So, some of them argue that it's not a legal person because they don't want those rights of the women to be infringe upon.

I've taken it a step further on these forums and elsewhere and have argued that it doesn't matter if it's a legal person or not. No one has the right to use another person's body for survival without that person's consent. The charter of rights moreover does not allow for the government to pass legislation that violates the sanctity of your body, in order for it to be used medically against your will. Therefore, matters not that you define the fetus as a legal person or a human being. That person is not entitled to use the mothers' body for his/her survival if it is against the mother's will.

Another thing I want to add is that one of the most ridiculous misunderstandings that keeps getting repeated on this forum and elsewhere, despite some having tried correcting it over and over again, is that pro-choice people are pro-abortion. This is entirely false. Pro-choice is exactly that. You're in favour of the mother making the decision. This says nothing about what your own personal decisions would be in the matter. You could be personally very much against abortion and would never want to have one yourself or want your spouse/girlfriend/partner to have one, but still very much recognize that women must be allowed to control their fertility in the interest of liberty and having control over their own life courses.

Edited February 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, let's consider your revised answer.

Ok, let's consider your revised answer.

They're interested in saving the lives of all these fetuses, but have absolutely no interest in implementing any sort of support programs for children in poverty or families that cannot properly raise their children for whatever reason. Pro-choice people argue about it for the same reason. It's about legal personhood. They see it as a fundamental right that a woman be able to choose how her body is used and only the woman chooses this, not the government or someone else. So, some of them argue that it's not a legal person because they don't want those rights of the women to be infringe upon.

But it's so obviously not a person at the beginning of life, and so obviously a person at the end of life. It seems pretty cynical to me to support an incorrect definition of life (at the end) just to prevent a possible legal ramification.

I've taken it a step further on these forums and elsewhere and have argued that it doesn't matter if it's a legal person or not. No one has the right to use another person's body for survival without that person's consent.

Right - so you could remove that person then, and have them begin life as a ward of the state.

[cybercoma]

There's nothing obvious about legal personhood. Conflating human being with legal personhood only leads to confusion. Human life begins at conception. Personhood is the debate and a moot one at that.

And yes. You could remove that person and have them begin life as a ward of the state. Despite this, I don't see many pro-lifers lining up to be foster parents or for adoptions.

[Michael Hardner]

There's nothing obvious about legal personhood. Conflating human being with legal personhood only leads to confusion. Human life begins at conception. Personhood is the debate and a moot one at that.

Talking about reality vs legal definitions is confusing ? So we should focus on legal personhood ? If so, we are putting law ahead of the reality that it's supposed to govern. So the law has become reality and in my opinion everybody should be putting up their hand to say something is wrong.

And yes. You could remove that person and have them begin life as a ward of the state. Despite this, I don't see many pro-lifers lining up to be foster parents or for adoptions.

I guess that's a knock against pro-lifers, but doesn't really have anything to do with the debate.

[roy baty]

No. It's not apparent and calling women nazis for wanting control over their own bodies and having the choice of when they will have children or not is not only wrong, but it's completely insulting and ignorant.

Nice job of putting false words in people's mouths and twisting around what was originally said to meet your own end. Choosing when to get pregnant have a baby and when to end a pregnancy are 2 completely different things. Not to mention not ALL women believe in abortion either. The mass killing of Jews between 1939 and 1945 was a holocaust by definition and for anyone who believes that ending the life of a fetus is killing, then the mass abortion taking place right now is also a holocaust, but one that is far greater. Be insulted as much as you want, but IMO nothing is more insulting to humanity right now than the liberal practice of abortion going on right now and it is ignorant of anyone to not see that abortion is ending a life.

BTW, you could say I am in many ways pro-choice as you defined it above because I think women should be allowed to do what they want even if it includes ending a life growing inside of them. Of course, with that comes full and complete personal responsibility for it in the next life should God decide that it was indeed murder. I happen to believe in God and that only he can judge those responsible for this holocaust, just as he will those responsible for any previous holocausts.

Edited February 16, 2013 by roy baty

[WWWTT]

Some believe that fewer rights should be given in that situation.

Yes there are many examples of this.

Children do NOT hae the right to vote until the age of 18.

There is also the right to buy firearms,drive a car and drink alcohol.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Oh here's another good one!

No person under the age of 30 may be appointed to the upper house or "senate"!

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Yes there are many examples of this.

Children do NOT hae the right to vote until the age of 18.

There is also the right to buy firearms,drive a car and drink alcohol.

WWWTT

And the right to not be killed - don't forget that one.

[WWWTT]

Want to clarify at what age does that one kicks in?

WWWTT

Edited February 16, 2013 by WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Want to clarify at what age does that one kicks in?

WWWTT

At birth.