OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

If the consequence of abortion legislation removes the right to decide from the woman and places it in the hands of the state how can it not be described as "exerting" control?

You just described a working definition of exerting control.

OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

Quote:

If the consequence of abortion legislation removes the right to decide from the woman and places it in the hands of the state how can it not be described as "exerting" control?

You just described a working definition of exerting control.

Here is what I wrote in my first post on this thread:

While denying a woman the right to abort her fetus clearly exerts control over her, you're not giving the majority of pro-lifers much credit if you think that it is the primary motivation for their position.

When the state conditionally provides welfare benefits to someone it is exerting control over them. When the state raises someone's taxes, it is exerting control over them. When the state declares any action to be illegal, it is attempting to exert control over the citizenry. If I decide not to rob my neighbor because I fear state punishment, I have been controlled.

There is very little the state does that doesn't involve the exertion of control over some person or persons.

This doesn't, necessarily, mean the primary inent of the state is to control, and it certainly doesn't mean that the primary intent of those who support the state's actions is to control.

This is not to say that there are not people, who for purposes of their own agendas, see control as the end and not as a mean. Arguments have been made that while the original intent of public assistance may have been benign it has gradually developed into a means to control a large voting bloc. Whether or not this is true can be debated, but the many people who sincerely believe welfare is a measure of a civilized society would probably take umbrage at the charge that their support of it was based on their desire to control welfare recipients.

If the intent of "right wing conservative" support of the pro-life position is simply, or even primarily, to control women through their reproductive systems, what is the pay off? What does this degree of control provide?

I consider myself a conservative (for what that is worth) and I admire Barry Goldwater and agree with much that he has said and written but I don't consider him, Ronald Reagan or any other individual to be my political guiding star.

Taking quotes from you post, Goldwater said or wrote:

""A woman has a right to an abortion."

and

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

These two statements are not reconciliable if one believes a fetus qualifies as "anyone else."

Many opponents of Pro-Life find it impossible to separate the "position," from the "movement," and conflate the "movement' with their worst nightmares of an American Inquisition.

Goldwater certainly believed in self defense.

That parasite has no right to be in there.
He can stay if the chick WELCOMES him; some do; some don't.
Its their option; their bodies r THEIR property.

If a parasite sneaks in,
the chick has a natural right to fight back and clean herself out,
the same as if a hornet flies in while she is using the door.
Being human or not has NO EFFECT on the morality
of repelling an invasive parasite. The parasite is in a state of GUILT, unless he is a welcome guest.

Human or NOT, the victim has a natural right to kill
the intrusive parasite, before birth, while he remains a biological parasite.

There actually is some sort of an ugliest dog contest... hast ever considered entering that thing in it?

The thousand injuries of Gungasnake I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insulting my dog, I vowed revenge.

A Tribute To The Dog
By George Graham Vest

The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us, may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads.

The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog. A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only be may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer; he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world.

He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings, and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him, to guard him against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by the graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death.

While denying a woman the right to abort her fetus clearly exerts control over her, you're not giving the majority of pro-lifers much credit if you think that it is the primary motivation for their position.

Btw finn, you do not seem to understand either David or me. Both of us are working from a first principle of strict liability to accuse anti-abortion proponents of exerting women to act a certain way. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any "fault" on their part.

It is inconsequential whether your primary purpose is simply to reduce abortions because the consequence of using the power of the state to affect that is exertion of the collective (i.e., the state) on to a woman’s right to abort a fetus. Your intention is a non-sequiter, because regardless of the intention the result of the action remains the same; and the action is exertion of power by the state over an individual. Since you actually know that the consequence of your actions would result in coercing women the fact that you continue your actions shows that you willfully accept that consequence. There is no difference between saying that your primary intent is not to exert power over another person, knowing that such action precedes directly from such intent versus saying it is.

I understand your intellectual dilemma, viz., trying not to admit that you are, in the end using the power of the state to prohibit legal behavior and coerce women. But, I would be more sympathetic to your argument if I could see evidence that the anti-abortion movement truly tried to reduce abortions, by insisting on effective sexual education and use of prophylactics for teen agers so that these kids would not get each other pregnant as often as they do. The best way to stop an abortion is to prevent a pregnancy.

I do understand that telling a teen ager about sex and how to prevent pregnancy may be seen by the kid as condoning the act of sex, but one does not simply throw a condom at a 15 year old and tell how to put it on, but to include detailed discussions on the emotional aspects of sex and how its power can enhance as well as corrupt one’s life.

We would be crazy to think that we can tell kids not to **** each other, and have them listen, but we can show them how to protect themselves from spreading venereal disease and not get the female pregnant.

my 10 year old male Kuvasz,

Until the fetus is born it is not a child, nor has a fetus ever been considered a child. It has the potential for human life, but it is not yet a human life.

Keeping your statements in mind, that leads to another question.

How can someone be arrested for endangering a child by using cocaine, heroin, or other drugs if that child has not yet been born?

How can someone be tried for murder of an unborn child, if it isnt considered a child till its born?