baddog1 wrote:Quote:Baddog1, I read the articles. People change their minds about issues...
Your statement above says it all about you and this subject. The "people" (person) you're referring to is not some unrelated woman off the street - now is she? Minimizing the role this person played in your entire personal agenda speaks volumes about "digging your heels in" on an issue. The facts are - there is no amount of evidence, factual information, testimony and/or basically anything in the world that you will consider - if it goes against your chosen belief. It's a pretty common psychological phenomenon really. I am unclear though as to why you would engage in discussion about it. You are not open to the possibility of altering your position on this subject - no matter the evidence. So why discuss it? What's your pay-off?
??????? I said that people change their mind about issues, and you completely twist it around and claim that I am "not open to the possibility of altering your position on this subject - no matter the evidence." Your assessment of me is illogical and totally unfounded.
So why did you post it?
I never even
heard of the NARAL person before reading this article (I knew about "Jane Roe"), and neither influenced my opinions. I pointed out several areas of disagreement with the article and instead of rebutting them, you launched into a diatribe about my alleged refusal to consider "facts" that go against my "beliefs.'"
The article was obviously a propaganda piece and a classic example of an appeal to emotions: rhetoric loaded with honorific/pejoratives, sensory descriptions, objects of emotion, anecdotes and recollections instead of real data.
I did my own research on the abortion issue before making up my mind, and I know the difference between facts, skewed statistics, anecdotes, opinion, misinformation, and outright lies. Facts CAN and WOULD change my mind on this or any other issue, but neither you nor the articles you referenced have presented any. I do not give off-the-cuff "statistics," emotional descriptions of former abortion practices, biased testimonials, unfounded opinions, or religious beliefs on the issue much weight when they conflict with verifiable FACTS (such as the documented fetal brain development process) and my own personal experiences with pregnancy and childbirth.
It is an OPINION, not a fact, that fertilized eggs and embryos are human beings and should have legal rights. It is an OPINION that it is OK to abort an embryo/fetus that resulted from rape, but not one that was the result of seduction, bad judgment, or birth control failure. It is an OPINION that society, government, or any individual should be able to interfere with a woman's right to control her own body and what happens to it.
In my OPINION, it is just a wrong to demand that women carry accidentally conceived and unwanted embryos to term as it would be to use girls as brood mares, deliberately impregnated to produce babies for women unable to have their own. In my OPINION, using waste embryos from fertility clinics (with the parents' consent) for research that might save lives makes a lot more more sense than flushing them down the drain. In my OPINION, an embryo/fetus is the property of the woman in whose body it is growing, and no one else has any right to tell her what she can or can't do with it until it can be shown to be a sentient human being.
My guess is that your post was just an attempt divert attention from your failure to answer the questions I posed to you. Here they are again, in case you missed them in your eagerness to attack my character instead of my arguments:
Why do you think that abortion is OK in the case of rape, but not in the case of birth control failure?
Just exactly who do you think "means it to be" when an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Why shouldn't we be able to alter our own fate, and that of others (as we do with every other action that affects the lives of others)?
Why should other people be greatly inconvenienced by your personal objections to them making decisions that have nothing to do with you?
Why shouldn't convenience be a valid reason for early abortion? Who is hurt by the decision?
