yguy

Not quite what we're looking for. I'll give you a hint: "yguy, your assertion is false because <insert penetrating logical refutation here>".

Utterly non-responsive. Children can become unwanted after they're born, trust me - or at least the mother can realize the child is unwanted. If that child has the right to be wanted, it shouldn't have to deal with "the reality of the situation". Why then should the unpleasantness of reality fall upon the unborn child?

I see it as a logical consequence of the right to abort, since the restrictions presently in place totally arbitrary. A baby is obviously no less human five minutes before birth than after birth, but somehow we feel confident in declaring a fetus of less than three months effectively excluded from the protections we give infants.

Jewel

Yguy, just because you assert that sex implies consent to pregnancy does not make it so. Sex, while possibly resulting in pregnancy, is mainy a recreational activity. If pregnancy happened everytime (or even almost everytime) humans had sex you might have something there. But as it stands that isn't the case. I see your arguement as nothing more than a thinly veiled desire to excercise control over women.


Oh yes, I've seen it too -- all too often. I suppose you think that is a better alternative to abortion? Chances are that child was unwanted prior to birth but the mother was not able to have an abortion (due to, perhaps, availability or financial reasons or pressure from friends, family or religion).

I do not see your infanticide argument as a logical consequence to the right to abort. Just as Toto said, after birth there are other options --such as adoption or hiring a nanny -- that are not available to the mother prior to birth.

yguy

Obviously. Still not what we're looking for, is it?

What does the probability of any one sexual episode resulting in pregnancy have to do with it? Do people somehow become less responsible for their actions if the probability of a mishap is lower? In the rural area where I live, I could point a gun skyward, fire, and the bullet would probably not hit anybody on the way back down. Would the law somehow deem me less culpable than if I'd done the same in the middle of NYC? I think not.

There are two women on this board that I know of who were sexually molested as children. Would it have been a good thing if their parents had been able to look down the road and see that and therefore decide to abort them?

And if killing a child in utero is an OK solution to the problem, why don't we just round up all those kids in the inner city who are likely to become drug dealers and put them out of their misery before they suffer any more than they have?

What I'm hearing is that the right of an infant to life is contingent on there being options available to the uncaring mother besides murder. That makes sense to you?

Jewel

You said "Consent of the mother is implied by the sexual act". I take that to mean that sex is solely or primarily for procreation, so if you get pregnant, well buck it up because it is your duty to have that child. I find it disgusting that anyone in this day and age would still relagate women to the status of incubators.

There is only 1 condition (that I can think of) where you can honestly assert a woman has given her consent to pregnancy -- when she is actively trying to achieve pregnancy.

Now, as far as being responsible for our actions -- you think that having an abortion is avoiding responsibility for our actions? I assert the opposite. Having a child when you can not provide for it or do not want it is the irresponsible action.

Well as unfortunate as that is it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Honestly, you ceased to make any sense to me a while ago. What I see here is that you feel that every pregnancy should be brought to term and anything short of that is murder. I do not accept that narrow view. I also do not accept your twisted version of morality where women are nothing more than incubators, incapable of making their own decisions and choices.

yguy

I happen to believe that is its proper use, but it's irrelevant to my position. The child didn't sneak into the womb, the parents put it there. Thus they became the gateway for a human life to come into the world. If they can force it through the gate of death before birth, there is no reason they can't do it afterwards.

Women relegate themselves to that status for a few months when pregnancy results from their own actions.

So if I shoot that bullet in the air, I'm not culpable unless I was trying to hit somebody?

By that logic, infanticide is more responsible than adopting out, as it relieves others of the burden of caring for the child.

I think it does, since you're the one trying to justify killing an unborn child to prevent any suffering it may experience down the road.

Of course I am, because I'm drawing a perfectly valid logical extrapolation from your implied premise.

But the question is, do YOU make sense to you? Sounds like you don't want to know.

fromtheright

Toto,

I don't see atheist pro-lifers as frauds, just as wrong, perhaps understandably since they have been subjected to a deluge of propaganda from religious people who hide their religious motivation.

1. It seems pretty clear you don't give atheists credit for thinking for themselves on this issue unless they agree with you. I suggest you take a look at Libertarians for Life which was founded by an atheist, Doris Gordon. Unless you think they're just a bunch of closet Catholics or part of the Vast Pro-life Conspiracy that hides in the shadows. Seriously, you should take a look at your assumption. Also, there are, as you know, several pro-lifers who identify themselves as atheists on this board.

2. Not all pro-life "propaganda" is religious. You should read The Moral Question of Abortion by Stephen Schwarz and Politically Correct Death by Frances Beckwith. Any religious arguments presented are pretty much as asides and are explicitly stated as such. It is also rather clairovoyant and misleading to argue that though the arguments presented are secular that the motivations must be religious and are therefore invalid. Doesn't say much for actually confronting the arguments.


Vylo, in any case, is not "pro-life." He seems to support abortion up to viability, and thinks partial birth abortions should be outlawed.

Thanks but I'll let Vylo speak for him/herself.

Toto

Sorry, I was confusing Vylo with another poster.

I have looked at the libertarians for life site. The arguments there are completely incoherent, and have not attracted much support from libertarians or atheists. Doris Gordon says she was inspired by two atheists, Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Brandon, neither of whom opposed abortion. But the web page quotes a Catholic priest and presents arguments directed at Catholic pro-choice politicians.

The whole basis for the libertarians for life argument is that life begins at conception. That's all. I (and many others) disagree that life begins at conception, and there is no scientific way of proving that life begins at conception. If life does not begin at conception, there is no basis for controlling early abortions. So where does that leave us?

While practically all of the anti-abortion activists claim to argue from a scientific and not a religious position, I have never seen a persuasive argument against abortion, and I notice that the anti-abortion movement is dominated by Catholics and by evangelical Christians (who usually claim that their opposition to abortion is not based on their religion.) I recently attended a debate in which an evangelical Christian debater argued against abortion, but claimed to base his case on science and not religion. Needless to say, his science was bogus, and he relied on arguments that resembled creationism.

Jewel

Is it? I don't think so. In fact, from your arguments thus far I'd say it is central to your position.

See -- I knew the 'pregnancy is punishment for having sex' argument would pop back up. Well, needless to say, I do not agree with that position.

After birth, adoption is a valid option -- but before birth it is not. It's really quite simple. I have nothing against adoption -- for those that choose to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. But forcing every woman to carry a pregnancy to term is -- I will say it again -- nothing short of slavery. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise.

On the contrary, I never said any such thing. Rather I asked you (in response to something you said) if you thought the resentment and abuse of unwanted children was a better alternative to abortion. So please stop putting words in my mouth.

Actually, that's not the question. And if that is some feeble attempt to put me on the defensive, I'm not biting.

In case you missed it before, I'll say again:

What I see here is that you feel that every pregnancy should be brought to term and anything short of that is murder. I do not accept that narrow view. I also do not accept your twisted version of morality where women are nothing more than incubators, incapable of making their own decisions and choices.

You can't seem to tell the difference between a zygote/embreo/fetus and a baby. You have said nothing that would prove your assumption that life begins at conception (and therefore should have the protected status of a person who is already a member of the community) and you have not given one good reason why my rights as a fully formed person (and already member of the community) should be suspended in favor of a possible human.

In short, I have yet to see a good argument against abortion.

yguy

I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding, since the idea that abortion can be justified by the possibility of avoiding unpleasant consequences is implicit in the question.

Since you evidently have superior knowledge, you shouldn't have any problem telling me why a fetus isn't a human being five minutes before birth, but is one after birth.

That life begins at conception is not debatable. What is debatable is whether that life is entitled to the same protection legally afforded an infant. There being doubt about this, the burden of proof of non-personhood properly lies with those who desire to kill the unborn child, since known criminals are granted the presumption of having the right to life in murder trials.

The right you are asking for is the right, having made yourself pregnant, to be unpregnant. You are as entitled to that as I am, having jumped off a cliff, to have not jumped off the cliff.

Jewel

I do not feel that any ones medical decisions need to be justified to anyone other than the people directly involved and their medical professional.

Oh, good grief -- do people have abortions five minutes before birth?? No, they don't. That argument is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. More than 99% of all abortions happen long before the point of viability.

Oh, I think it is quite debatable. And until science proves that life begins at conception then I suppose we will be at an empasse.

Sorry -- can't prove a negative. The burden of proof of personhood lies with those who declare it so.

Hey, we agree on something. How about that. And what's more -- the courts have granted women the right to choose and have stood by that ruling.

If you are so against abortion then I suggest you don't have one. No one will force you.