Can anybody help me uderstand the thinking of pro-choicers? (vanity)

Your demand for license gets pricier with each killing.

Huh?

When I was in medical school we saw video of what is called amnioscopy. That is where a trochar is placed through the anterior abdominal wall , through the uterine wall, and into the amniotic sac, in which the baby developes. As I recall the gestational ages varied from 12 weeks to about 30 weeks. The amnioscope has lenses with a bright light to illuminate the amniotic sac. The light was shined into the face of the baby and guess what...the baby reacted to the bright light, just like you and I would react. The heel of the baby was pricked with a transcutaneous needle. Guess what... the baby recoiled obviously trying to avoid the prick of the needle, just like we would. Do you remember the ultrasonography called "The Silent Scream"? I am sorry I cannot provide a website with this information.

WHO!!! You trust the United Nations? Like they don't have an agenda? And how likely is it that they have accurate statistics on illegal abortions done in secret? I don't trust anything to do with the United Nations whatsoever.

Please provide that evidence for me. I've provided evidence that 48 percent of the abortions that occur worldwide occur in places where it is illegal. This is evidence that abortion laws don't seem to work too well. Like I said, I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I just haven't been thus far.

LOL, now you want proof that criminalization works? Look up American abortion statistics, pre-Roe. Game. Set. Match. Though, I am intrigued...to be consistent, you are opposed to criminalization of homicide in general...right?

And I'll make the same argument to you - where is your proof that allowing unfettered access to abortion while making a moderate educational effort will reduce abortion by the vastly more then 90% that criminalization did?

I want actual PROOF, as we have in regards to criminalization stopping the overwhelming majority of abortions.

Sure. Roe v. Wade is just bad law. However, I think that if our goal is to save lives, we should pursue my alternatives before risking women's lives through criminalization.

There is only on proven way to save lives. That is to ban abortion, as the statistics show. I do think you are indeed being cavalier though when it comes to women's lives, as every other successful abortion ends a woman's life. You claim it is ricky to protect these women with the force of law. I say the primary legitimate reason for the existence of government is to protect these women, and men, from those that would kill them.

[No, they are not. They are observing a change in status, but this is no more related to "the legal definition of humanity" than is the passage from "minor" to "adult" at age 18 (or 21) any attempt to "define humanity" either.]
Untrue. It is as illegal to kill a 17 year old as it is a 18 year old or a 21 year old. All three are judged persons, though obviously minors' rights are somewhat restricted.

...none of which is based on "defining humanity", as you keep attempting to claim. Consider that it is legal for the state to kill a person convicted of a capital crime, even though they clearly have not been adjudged "not human". It is legal to kill in self defense (and war), but that too is not predicated on the attacker being "not human".

You're really off base by trying to equate legal status to a determination of "humanity".

However, the viability argument you are advancing would make it ok to kill a 23 week old unborn child, but not a 24 week old unborn child, and it would do so because the former was not recognized as a human being by the law while the latter would be.

Again, false.

[Correct, except that it's not "untenable".]
You are right, to this extent, the argument that we should allow someone to be denied basic human rights, specifically the right to life, based on an arbitrary standard that we all recognize has nothing to do with humanity itself isn't just untenable, it is repugnant.

So... You find repugnant killing in self defense, in war, and in the death penalty? Fascinating.

Hoist on your own petard...

[Again, it's hardly "completely arbitrary" -- it's based on an objective reality, and it's quite obviously one of the key issues in this debate. It's not just pulled out of thin air; viability *does* matter.]
After essentially admitting that viability is completely arbitrary

Hallucinate much?

you return to arguing that it is not?

I have always argued that it is not.

I've spent many an argument like this on USENET, but I expect a little more on FR.

Me too, but I won't hold it against you.

There is one question, and only one, in regards to abortion. Is the unborn child a human being?

Please define "unborn child" and "human being". Be specific and complete, taking care to eliminate ambiguous terms and conditions, and being precise enough to not accidentally include absurd cases, while covering all gray areas. We'll wait.

Viability has no bearing on this question at all,

You're certainly entitled to your personal opinion.

and is a completely arbitrary line, as I've shown,

Not that I've noticed.

and you've admitted.

Feel free to quote me on that, if you think you can.

Specifically, as we've already discussed, viability in 1973 was 24 weeks. Today it is around 22. One day it will be null.

Beside the point.

An unborn child at 23 weeks in 1973 cannot be logically categorized as any different then a child at the same point of development today - yet you are attempting to square this circle. This is defintionally arbitrary.

Horse manure. This is as ridiculous a claim as saying that "survivability" with regards to Leukemia "cannot be logically categorized as any different in 1973 than a cancer at the same point of advancement today". Sure it can. And likewise, a 23-week fetus today has better viability (e.g. survival rate outside the mother) than one in 1973. To try to claim otherwise is, well, stupid. And so is your attempt to try to call this "squaring the circle". Nor is this *objective* improvement in viability in any way "defintionally [sic] arbitrary".

Further one then gets into other complications, as you tellingly did not address previously in the issue of the availability of medical technology. Is a 23 week unborn child in Bangladesh less a human being then one in America merely merely because the cutting edge technology here is not available there?

You are, again, throwing the red herring of "less a human being" into this. That is not the point being discussed, and as I've pointed out in numerous examples, it is not a disputed point even for determination of legally justifiable killings *other* than due to abortion.

Again, following your misguided criteria, killing in self defense, in war, and in capital punishment would likewise be off-limits due to the "humanity" of the attacker/combatant/convict. Is that really where you're going with this?

"When I was in medical school we saw video of what is called amnioscopy. That is where a trochar is placed through the anterior abdominal wall , through the uterine wall, and into the amniotic sac, in which the baby developes. As I recall the gestational ages varied from 12 weeks to about 30 weeks. The amnioscope has lenses with a bright light to illuminate the amniotic sac. The light was shined into the face of the baby and guess what...the baby reacted to the bright light, just like you and I would react. The heel of the baby was pricked with a transcutaneous needle. Guess what... the baby recoiled obviously trying to avoid the prick of the needle, just like we would. Do you remember the ultrasonography called "The Silent Scream"? I am sorry I cannot provide a website with this information."

Thanks for the great information. I love to tell my 4 daughters (I have 4 teens) the kinds of things you posted.

My step daughter was a funny case too. My husband told me they had to take fluid during his wifes pregnacy (5 or 6 months) so they inserted a long needle, and my step-daughter reached up and grabbed the needle! She held the needle for 2 or more minutes because the Dr. couldn't get it away from her. LOL

The Dr. said he had never seen anything like it. He ended up delivering her, and said he did a lecture about her case.

My problem with that is the arbitrary line. Why does it magically become a human at 6 months?

Because that is when a fetus can survive outside the womb
on it's own even for a short time. That is what swung me
over to the partial-birth ban. It makes no sense to have
adjoining operating rooms, with a doctor in one of them,
one trying to save the life of a premature baby just into it’s
third trimester and the other doctor aborting a fetus that is
at the same point in the pregnancy.

The Pro-Choicers have a principal genetic trait that originated in Pompeii = SELFISHNESS!

"...Sorry, but at the point of conception, cells have not yet duplicated and no embryo is yet forming. Please try again. " (etc. etc. etc.)

I'm not going to argue with you. Sperm meets egg, life is formed, cells begin to duplicate. Too bad if you don't consider that an embryo. I consider it the beginning of a new life, and believe THAT'S the point at which it is morally unacceptable to destroy it.

End of discussion.

My opinion is part of the problem is the term itself. Calling it pro-choice makes it sound like something positive. There aren't a lot of placards or T-Shirts that say Pro-Abortion. Just saying it in that way would probably make at least half the people back away. Some of the support comes from people that have little if any religious conviction and are driven only by what they perceive as science.

Somewhere in the last 30-40 years our society has taken away the stigma attached to certain situations. In the 40s and 50s being an unwed mother, divorce, abortion, promiscuity and many other actions carried a degree of shame with them. This shame was society policing itself. We didn't need laws to tell us that something was right or wrong in regards to alot of moral issues.

I think somewhere along the road we became confused with real persecution. Things that were undoubtedly wrong. Things like slavery, racism and sexism. As that ball began to roll it just kept going, maybe out of control. We seemed to be reaching a point where shame is almost nonexistent.

My belief is we shouldn't make abortion illegal, what we need to do is get society back to a place where shame exists. It is something that can't be forced upon people. Like most of our problems it starts in the home and in our schools. That said I have no idea how it can be fixed.

Read this.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n1/hope61_text.html

...none of which is based on "defining humanity", as you keep attempting to claim. Consider that it is legal for the state to kill a person convicted of a capital crime, even though they clearly have not been adjudged "not human". It is legal to kill in self defense (and war), but that too is not predicated on the attacker being "not human".

Again, your argument, and I think we can abandon your former pretense that this is not *your* view on the issue, compared 17-18 years olds with 23-24 weeks unborn children.

You cannot kill a 17 year old. You can kill, by your argument, a 23 week old.

This invaildates your analogy, and it is exactly because you are arguing that a 23 week old is not a human being.

So now you change the subject. Sure, you can kill in self defense, and the state can kill those found guilty by a jury of their peers of a capital crime.

And in no way do either of these cases have anything to do with the unborn who are physically incapable of committing capital crimes or, ROTFL, joining an army.

So what this has to do with the debate, I'm unsure of. Is your claim now that 23 week old unborn children are in fact human, but are to be legally killable because they've been found guilty of a capital crime? That they are an enemy we are at war with? There are a few very specific grounds that killing another human being is allowable. Unfortunately for you, the unborn meet none of those grounds.

So again, your analogy fails, and you are left arguing the unborn before some arbitraty point in time, 24 weeks here, are still killable, but now with *no* reason to excuse such killing.

You're really off base by trying to equate legal status to a determination of "humanity".

How so? You claim the unborn are killable. You first base it on age of gestation with the clear implication of humanity, and now laughably move on to declaring the unborn as enemy combatants. As bad as your previous implied argument was, this new one of yours is far worse.

So... You find repugnant killing in self defense, in war, and in the death penalty? Fascinating. Hoist on your own petard...

Boy, you really do enjoy getting laughed at. What army are the unborn members of that allows their killing? Or, when can I turn on COURT TV and watch the trial of an unborn child?

Seriously, you need to stop and consider what you are writing before hitting "Post".

Hallucinate much?

Seriously, are you on drugs? You've flipped and flopped, as most pro-aborts do, but each time landing on a weaker argument. In addition to arguing the dangers of the unborn army you are now denying the progress of medical science?

I have always argued that it is not.

I know I could just consult magic 8 ball, but let's try this one more time.

Viability in 1973 was 24 weeks, yes or no?

Today it slightly less, yes or no?

At some time in the future it will likely be reduced to null, yes or no?

If your answers are, as they are in the world I live in at least, yes, yes, and yes, then you've just defined viability as arbitrary.

Please define "unborn child" and "human being". Be specific and complete, taking care to eliminate ambiguous terms and conditions, and being precise enough to not accidentally include absurd cases, while covering all gray areas. We'll wait.

LOL. Now that we've both established that you can't support your pro-abortion position you seek to change the argument. I expected as much.

Sorry, I'm not throwing you the lifeline. You've made an arguments...well a few different arguments...and we are going to establish the sheer and utter lack of sanity behind them.

Besides, you are cracking me up with your "arguments". Seriously - what is more dangerous, the unborn army or the Al Qaeda Navy?

Horse manure. This is as ridiculous a claim as saying that "survivability" with regards to Leukemia "cannot be logically categorized as any different in 1973 than a cancer at the same point of advancement today". Sure it can. And likewise, a 23-week fetus today has better viability (e.g. survival rate outside the mother) than one in 1973. To try to claim otherwise is, well, stupid. And so is your attempt to try to call this "squaring the circle". Nor is this *objective* improvement in viability in any way "defintionally [sic] arbitrary".

Ring Ring. Sorry, that was Senator Kerry, he'd like his flip flops back from you.

Another unrelated analogy. What a surprise.

No one is arguing that a leukemia victim can be killed based on what their prospective chances of surviving X number of days is, unless of course *you* are now claiming that some one with a possibly terminal illness is killable for the hell of it.

You *are* arguing that an unborn child can be killed based on whether or not the cutting edge of medical technology could likely save such child's life or not.

Now, I guess then your "argument" is that now a 23 week old unborn child couldn't join the unborn army, whereas one in 1973 could, and so one shouldn't be able to kill said child now, but could in 1973.

Now in the world of rational thought though, refusing to protect the human rights of the 1973 unborn child while protecting said child now, is again, arbitrary. Essentially, and yes I know I'm ignoring your unborn army theory, we argue that the former isn't deserving of human rights because someone hadn't invented some machine or drug *yet*. This is, in laymen's terms, known as expedient bullshit.

Again, following your misguided criteria, killing in self defense, in war, and in capital punishment would likewise be off-limits due to the "humanity" of the attacker/combatant/convict. Is that really where you're going with this?

I'll be honest. At first I thought perhaps the above was a case of typing-before-thinking, but you really seem set on the notion that there are trials of the unborn and unborn armies out there.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to such nonsense. Most abortion supporters will go to absurd lengths to justify killing the unborn, but I've never seen one so willing to move beyond even the merest glimpse of sanity.

Since you asked, and I assume in good faith, some of us don't believe that a cell, or two, are a life. I lose more cells shaving.

We know that late term abortions are ghastly, too.

Life is somewhere in between. Hard to tell when, but it is not at a cell or two, at least in my opinion.

Since you asked.

No responsibility for ones own actions.

B) There's no proof of reverse causality. Even if it's true that legalizing abortion substantially increased its occurence, there's no proof that reversing it more than 30 years later would substantially reduce it.

There is no proof the sun will come up tomorrow but it likely will. Prosecuting violators will do what the law is suppose to do which is control crime. Taking an innocent human life is a crime. Granted a society that has legalized murder may need time to bring the murder rate down but it must. The authority of God is behind law against taking innocent life. People who try to justify murder are not part of the solution.

Actually, that wouldn't be proof for several reasons

Weak response, though points for channelling Derrida.

The abortion floodgates open at the same time as criminalization was removed. Therefore the first, and most logical response, to stop abortion is to close what caused the floodgate in the first place.

The evidence of what was stands as decisive proof when looking at how to now proceed for the pro-life movement.

Laws against homicide save more lives than they kill, so no. This is a strawman.

How so? You've argued that statistics alone are pointless in evaluating the success of criminalizing one particular type of homicide. Surely then any statistics that show correllation between laws against non-fetal homicide and a reduction in the occurance of such homicide are at best suspect?

And even if you are now willing to accept statistical evidence, what proof do you have that taking the money and effort spent on criminalizing general homicide wouldn't be better spend on educating people on the issue?

I believe I provided cites above on the effectiveness of the programs I mentioned in reducing pregnancies. Obviously, reducing pregnancies is the best way to reduce abortion.

My proof is better than your proof because it takes into account today's society, rather than extrapolating from supposed facts that are 30 years old and applying reverse causality when there is no proof of such

And what proof is this? Perhaps I missed these new statistics in an earlier posting of yours somehow, but looking through my pings, I see nothing of the sort...

Of course, again, if I take your current line of reasoning, such statistics are of course not proof. So...I guess I'm still waiting for you to site something remotely as conclusive as the actual historical record, as I have done.

The evidence points in my direction as yours is full of fallacies. Your argument that I am "risking women's lives" assumes I'm advocating the status quo, which I'm clearly not.

Actually you are in fact advocating the status quo. The Pro-Life movement has advanced a broad educational initiative in addition to seeking to outlaw abortion. This educational platform has, in addition to other elements, had some effect. The abortion rate has gone down. The decrease has been small, however, and one cannot establish the likelyhood that expending all the effort currently involved in fighting legalized abortion would do much more.

Further, one can expect that taking the pressure off legalized abortion would aid in the abortion movement's continuing attempts to destigmatize abortion.

OTOH, criminalizing abortion has a proven track record in saving lives. The arguments boil down, as one would expect, to the same as that for the criminalization of general homicide.

Arguing then that we should abandon the only hope hundreds of thousands of unborn child per year have is just wrong.

The millions that disagree are wrong. Criminally wrong.

So say you. The trick, of course, is persuading others that your view is the correct one.

I'm sure this will go over your head, but calling people who disagree with you "criminal" is not a good way to get them to change their mind.

It's not "which" God, there is only one.

The vast majority of humans living today and in the past would disagree with your view as to the "correct" god.