Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Well, let's ask. Anyone here on A2K adopted?

Would you rather have been scrapped from your biological mother's uterus?

I await your ansers.

Again at what point is it the mother's right to choose whether her child lives or dies? At conception? At three months? Six months? An hour before the baby emerges from the womb? If the issue is not forcing a child to come into the world unwelcome or adequately provided for, why would it be wrong to kill the baby after it is born? When you think about it, it doesn't really make all that much difference to the baby.

Foxfyre wrote:


What's the number for false questions again?
Abortion is not about killing a baby an hour before birth. That would make the fetus "viable." Your question is an obvious intent to put the person questioned on the defensive.

So Foxfyre...
What is the difference between killing a baby 7 months before birth and 16 years after? Since RWers are so supportive of killing 16 years olds you must be able to answer that. There were 29 up for death in Texas alone and several RW groups have attacked the USSC for its ruling today.

No it is not a question intended to put the person quesitoned on the defensive. For the record, I am actually pro choice in that I support the letter and intent of Roe v Wade and think necessary abortion should be safe and legal. Abortion ha gone far beyond the letter and intent of Roe v Wade, however.

I was responding to Lola's assertion that no child should be forced to be born into a world in which he or she would not be properly cared for or something to that effect. In other words, that was suficient reason to kill the child.

I was simply asking at what point or what age is that suficient reason? There was no qualification given for viable, not viable or any other criteria given. The only issue was whether the child would be cared for or not.

And for the record, I think an abortion for that reason cannot in any way be justified. As McG stated, there is always the option of adoption. And there are thousands upon thousands of financially solvent and loving parents out there ready and willing to adopt a child, especially an infant.

I am against intentionally killing anyone at any age Parados.

I'm with McG there. In the vast majority of cases, I think the right to choose is exactly what I said before--the right to choose whether or not to risk pregnancy. Those who elect to take that risk in my opinion have taken on responsibility for another human life to either love and care for him/her and raise him/her to be a responsible citizen of the world or to make sure that s/he has the opportunity to be loved and cared for and be raised to be a responsible citizen of the world.

Do you believe in war? Do you believe in capital punishment? Do you believe in the need for self defense?

Well, McG, since you asked. I'm not adopted. But I was supposed to be aborted. It didn't happen, but if it had, I wouldn't know it. I can't say it would be bad. Far worse to be alive and loose my life. Or to be alive and be unable to care for myself or be so severly traumatized that I can't function efficiently. It all comes down to consciousness and qualilty of life for me.

Don't be ridiculous Lola. I'm not going to defend your extreme examples.

Yes, I am against capital punishment, just as I am abortion which is what we were talking about.

Fox - when would you say an abortion could be justified?

This is what you said, McG.

How about war or self defense?

What you would do, Foxfire is not relevant here. Few people in this world are as well off as you are. And the fact that you don't seem to know this leaves me believing that you're either ignorant or insensitive. You have no right to speak for others.

But, oh dear. My suitor is calling. It's time for a glass of wine and fun. See y'all later.

My ex sister-in-law had 3 abortions after her divorce and explained to me that she had them because she didn't want any more children and that, as a christian (I think Baptist) it was a greater sin to use birth control which implied that she intended to have sex whereas with an abortion she could defie it as an "accident." Weird ain't it?

Then there was my friend, who decided not "to risk pregnancy". But the condom tore ... she was just 21, her boyfriend not the man she wanted to be a father, she herself not the woman she wanted to be a mother.

Morning After Pill would do well in most cases.

Why wait and kill a baby?

Caught up late with the discussion (I wanted to come and do some nationalist Mexican or Cuban rant) but I will touch the abortion theme.

The question, IMO, is not whether abortion is good or bad, or when does an embryo become human. But whether abortion will be practiced in safe social, mental and sanitary conditions or in unsafe clandestine conditions. Whether differences are stressed (a woman can pay a decent doctor -or a flight to NY or London-; another uses a clothes rack and bleed to death) or minimized by a permissive law.

In Mexico abortion is illegal except for rape cases in 3O states, in case of rape or severe damage of the embryo in Mexico City, in case of rape or extreme poverty of the mother in Yucatán.
Yet, with that legislation, 28% of pregnancies end in abortion. Like in many other countries.

For the record. I have three children, which I adore. Were it not for abortion, I would have had another two. One at age 17 (the mother would have been 16). The other at a severe life endargering risk for the mother (the DIU traspassed the uterus and was an extrauterine pregnancy). The first one could have been prevented if the day-after pill had existed in 1971. The other one, was unpreventable. In both cases, I do not regret the decision (and obviously do not consider myself an assasin) and I'm sure the women don't regret it either (both are loving mothers).

I have never and would not presume to judge any woman in making a decision like that. I have no problem, however, believing that killing a healthy baby at or near the viable stage is killing a human life. It is ironic that some blow off the real questions with things like "I have no right to speak for others" while blithley speaking their own mind that abortion, presumably at any stage, is preferable to bringing an unwanted child into the world. But then that person's opinion is relevant and mine is not. She said so.

As for being well off, at the time my children were born there was a lot of week left at the end of the money. But we got through.

I think there are likely enough loving people out there who want to be parents that the 'unwanted child' argument simply won't fly in more than a very few extreme cases.

and with all of those little unwanted babies out there, how many have you adopted ?

so then you, of course, are a pacifist and do not support any war at any time... you do not support the death penalty.

i'm not trying to smash you up, mcg. but when it comes to "the sanctity of life", you either are with it or you are against it.