JGL53

- I'm not interested in FORCING any woman to give birth against her will. That would seem 'cowardly' to me.

Also, murder is a legal term. It is the unjustifiable taking of a human life. Fetuses aren't humans beings as defined by the law and therefore cannot be murdered. You and others can self-define abortion as murder all you want. You can also define an acorn as an oak tree - same logical error.

yguy

Whether it will take a civil war with shots fired in anger I have my doubts...but abortion will not stand. Get used to it.

I don't advocate forcing a woman to give birth, I advocate preventing her from killing another human being which, in 98% of the cases, she brought into existence of her own free will.

By this logic, if we pass legislation on Monday defining fetuses as humans, that makes them human, right? If we can grant humanity with the stroke of a pen, why can we not take it away in like manner?

JGL53

[QUOTE]Originally posted by long winded fool
[B] ....The raw truth is that abortion is irrational, detrimental to society, and legal.


The 'facts' that legal abortion is irrational and detrimental to society is your opinion. You haven't proven anything, my friend, so quit patting yourself on the back before you dislocate your shoulder.

To take the 'detrimental' charge first, how so? We need more people? Or is it that legal abortion somehow devalues human life in general? If the latter, how? I know of no one who decided "Well, since abortion is legal, human life is apparently valueless, so I'll just go shoot a bunch of people dead.". Do you know of someone who actually reasoned this way, and acted on this truly irrational belief?

On the 'irrational' charge, I think I see what you mean:

A fetus is a human being, ergo legal abortion is legal murder.
Yet murder (the unjustified killing of a human being)is illegal.
So murder is both illegal and legal re the same entity.

That's your proof of 'irrationality', right?

Well, who can argue with that -except eighty per cent of the population for the last thirty years (according to polls).

so, shall we rehash why a fetus is not a person, one more time? OK, you first.

JGL53

If a law is passed tomorrow making it illegal to walk down the street without wearing a blue hat, then that's that. No one but a fool thinks the law makes something 'right' in some cosmic or superhuman sense. The law is merely the law. And laws are passed all the time. Some make no sense to me and some do, same situation with you, same with every mother's son. Your point?

yguy

Yeah - and guys might have to get used to not getting laid so easy, huh?

Bummer for ya, pal.

Such convenient stupidity. The point, of course, is that the law cannot be properly used to determine the humanity of anyone, because humanity is an objective reality, not a legal abstraction subject to our whims. If we can declare fetuses not human, we can do the same to blacks, homosexuals, or anyone else - including you, if you're part of a perceived undesirable minority.

JGL53

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yguy
Yeah - and guys might have to get used to not getting laid so easy, huh?

Bummer for ya, pal. [QUOTE]

So, you believe that anti-abortion laws would force all those promiscuous bitches to cut off all the whoremongers, eh?
((Isn't if funny, folks, how the people who preach this crap are generally the ones who wind up being caught in the barn with a goat? ))




Hmmmmm. Well, Ayn Rand is dead, but her 'spirit' lives on. Look. we can have a sort of objective reality in mathematics or geometry and the attributes of the physical universe, but not in societal laws. Of course we can declare by law blacks or homosexuals or anyone else a non-human, and that would be it, until the law is changed. Who is human is a subjective question, just like many things. Who else but humans declares blacks humans? God? Aliens from some other planet? You? Who else makes all laws of society except humans, in consensus?

If and when enough people, though consensus, decide abortion should be made illegal again, then that will be that. But you'll need to persuade a lot more folks that something the size of your big toe that looks like a tadpole is actually a person. Polls show eighty per cent don't see it that way, so your work is cut out for you. Get busy. The morally superior man's work is never done.

yguy

I believe I'll just let this speak for itself.

You think blacks weren't human until we said they were?

Wow. Postively Godlike, aren't we?

Of course we make laws. So did the Nazis - and their laws got them what they deserved. And so will ours do likewise. We can make incest legal, pedophilia legal - hell, we can make murder legal on payment of a fee to a federal agency...but there is a price to be paid for such presumption.

long winded fool

To have two contradictory laws in effect is detrimental to the authority of law in a given society. (Equal and inalienable human rights vs. majority votes which humans get rights.) A society with conflicting laws is unstable. To allow this irrational legislation to stand sets a precedent that laws are neither based on logic nor reason. It shows that we don't care about justice or fairness, (and therefore about the future of the society.) We only care about maximizing the short-term happiness of the majority, even if it's at the expense of a minority. Since it's logical to assume that those who live in a given society desire the society's continued existence, it is illogical to pass laws that undermine the backbone of said society. (i.e. freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.)

But a fetus could be considered a person if person is defined as the bodily form of a human being. There are many definitions of person. If we only use a definition that describes a person as a self-conscious moral agent, then lots of human beings are not persons. This is precisely why "personhood" has nothing to do with the inalienable rights assumed by the members of this society.

So a fetus can be a person. And this fact, in addition to the fact that a fetus can also be considered not a person, are both entirely irrelevant to the fact that legal abortion is irrational in a free country. "Personhood" is a red herring as is "women's rights" in this argument. Rights apply to human beings. Obviously this means not just persons (whatever definition you use) and not just women. Since this is the case, legal abortion is irrational and detrimental to society. (Simply having an irrational and enforced law on the books is, and always has been historically speaking, detrimental in the long-term to society.) Not my subjective opinion. Logically proven fact. If it is not logically proven, you should have no trouble clearly pointing out the logical flaw. Since no one has done this, it is true until falsified.

That's the beauty of logic. It is objective and unbiased. If I'm wrong, show me and I'll remember not to make that mistake again. If I'm right, you can still turn off your brain and assume that it is just my subjective opinion, but it is provably false that you can hold a different opinion and still remain in the realm of logic.

dk

Are you saying the godess made women to bring life into the world, then gave them abortion to become the equal of men.

I capitulate, your irony surpasses me.

Dr Rick

No more than you're saying that you are a fish.

A minimal attempt on your part to actually address the rebuttals posted would allow others to treat you opinions as more than just a sad joke.

Your posts on this thread are overwhelming evidence to the contrary.