Chilling opening lines
Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott have coauthored an op ed piece in today’s Washington Times that a Tweeter titled better than the WT: “26 years of pro-life policies undermined in 44 days under Obama’s leadership.”
A philosophical shift has taken place in the abortion rights movement. After confronting either a pro-life president or a pro-life majority in Congress for 26 of the last 28 years, abortion advocates have now secured sympathetic majorities in all three branches of government.
And change in government has brought change to a movement that’s moved beyond working to secure a woman’s right to choose abortion. Its new goal is much more audacious – to coerce others into violating their consciences and participating in the murder of innocent human life. It’s a shift from merely being “pro-choice” to being “pro-abortion.”
This fundamental shift is personified most vividly in President Barack Obama. And it is exemplified most strikingly in his ambition to enact policies that would force millions of pro-life Americans to pay for and perform abortions….
I don’t become frightened, because my God is in control. But everyone better get clear quick that there are major pro-abortion government policy changes underway. One only has to refer as far back as today’s White House Healthcare Summit to understand.
[HT: Claude]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I can see what has happened in this country as no less than God’s judgement.
And, it has only just begun.
The most unsafe place in the world right now is the womb of a woman who does not want her child. Over a million deaths per year as opposed to hundreds of murders per year in NYC, Chicago, etc. We need to support our local pregnancy care centers. These centers provide God’s love, the Gospel, tangible assistance, and hope to women in crisis situations FREE of charge. They are up against the larger Planned Parenthoods in our nationwide communities. Reverse the curse of your taxpayer dollars and support these pregnancy care centers. They are hurting in this economy but they are vital to those who hold a worldview that all children are valuable and made in God’s image.
WWII deaths wasn’t as high as the # of abortions done each year. Its America’s Hidden Holocaust and we must protect the most vulnerable.
I can see what has happened in this country as no less than God’s judgement.
And, it has only just begun.
Posted by: HisMan at March 5, 2009 4:33 PM
agreed. Sometimes God gives us exactly what we want.
How is using the tax money of “pro-life” individuals any better or worse than using the tax money of pacifists to fund war?
Citizens should not be able to say what the government can and cannot do with their tax dollars beyond voting for representatives they support and encouraging their representatives to vote for or against certain policies.
Otherwise, it’s a huge can of worms.
Should people who are against public education be exempt from supporting schools with their tax dollars?
Should someone who doesn’t drive a car and doesn’t use the roadway system be exempt from paying taxes for the maintenance of roads?
Bee
what if found out that your tax money was used to fund child pornography? What would you say then?
Bee:
I pay school taxes.
I also pay tuition to a private school so my son can, oh my God, pray in school.
I’m being screwed by the left for their evil.
Don’t forget this. God sees everything and He will deal with those who suprress the gospel and the knowledge of His son.
Don’t forget this. God sees everything and He will deal with those who suprress the gospel and the knowledge of His son.
Posted by: HisMan at March 5, 2009 7:35 PM
what did GWB say? Bring it on! Oh yeah.
I have never and will never base my life or my beliefs on popular opinion. This goes for abortion as well. Regardless of how dark things get, I refuse to give up in regards to the unborn. Things seemed hopeless for Wilberforce in his task of fighting for the human rights of the oppressed, and at times they will seem hopeless for us as well, but I choose to walk by faith and not by sight.
God is moving and God is changing hearts. I have witnessed this in the lives of those around me. His Truth will never return void. I praise Jesus for the lives being saved through the 40 Days for Life campaigns and through Crisis Pregnancy Centers and other front lines ministries. I praise Jesus for the hearts and minds that have been changed here and on other forums in regards to this issue.
I will say it again: God is moving! I will choose to rejoice in Him. :)
Excuse me Hal:
How anything GWB did suppress the gospel?
You know Hal, I think if you were born in Germany during the 1930’s you would have been a Nazi.
Anything and anyone to promote your godless and death-filled agenda.
LizFromNebraska,
The two situations are hardly comparable. Child pornography is illegal. Abortion, whatever your moral views on the subject may be, is not. I repeat, if you should be able to say you don’t want your tax dollars to pay for abortions because you are opposed to abortion, why should a pacifist’s tax dollars be used to pay for war? If you have a right to say “well, this is legal, but I morally object so shouldn’t have to pay,” why shouldn’t they?
Hisman,
I fail to see how you are being “screwed” by the left.
Realistically, not everyone uses all the services that their tax dollars support. This does not condemn taxation.
Also, based on studies, a majority of people in the world would have made good Nazis had they lived in Germany during the 1930s.
Hisman, just how are you getting ‘screwed’ by the left? Your son could pray in public school if he wanted to, he just could not force all the other kids to pray in public school with him like I was forced to as a kid by a fundamentalist Christian ‘Bible teacher’ who had no respect for my faith or anyones but her own. Your son could attend a public school, form a Bible club that would have a legally protected right to meet, prayed silently before every class, meal(or test), and you could rest assured that in districts where your faith is no longer the majority he would not be forced be lead daily in Muslim or Wiccan or whatever prayers were being forced on the kids that day.
‘Screwed’? Please.
As per the comparison of child porn and abortion, one is legal, supported as a right even by many denominations, and most Americans want it to remain legal and elected a very bluntly pro choice President and congress knowing this, and the other is illegal in every state and has very, very little public support. The comparison does not work or fit at all.
History tells us that the Christian religion fared very well when many of their members were being fed to the lions. Some speculate that such persecution actually helped to spread Christianity. Remember that as Obama and his allies attempt to feed unborn babies to the lions of the abortion industry.
Kelly :”As per the comparison of child porn and abortion, one is legal, supported as a right even by many denominations, and most Americans want it to remain legal and elected a very bluntly pro choice President and congress knowing this, and the other is illegal in every state and has very, very little public support. The comparison does not work or fit at all.”
You make a big mistake here Kelly. Americans voted for Obama yes, but that does not mean they openly support every stance that he stood on. Notice that Obama did NOT make abortion a major issue when running for president. He won for many reasons. The most influential was his stance on the economy. (As it turns out, like most presidents, Obama has done nothing to help the economy. He didnt write “his” stimulus bill, congress did.) Anyways, to claim that Americans support abortion, or spending on abortion, simply because Americans voted in officials who are pro-choice is absurd.
As far as abortion funding goes, Im actually on the same page as Bee, despite his/her demonstrated shortcomings in the only other post Ive seen of his/hers. I dont think we should fund going to war either.
Of course the distinction between child pronography and abortion along the grounds of legality is also a bit suspect. Abortion SHOULD be illegal based on our other laws and ethics. Its illegal for a parent to neglect his/her child and indigent children are still protected under this rule, even those without significant brain matter or the ability to feel pain. Heck, mothers are even required by law to breastfeed their children if there is no other option!
With all due respect Oliver, we live in a world of “is” not what one or another think ‘should’ be the case. Abortion is legal in all the the US. Before Roe it was legal in much of the US. Before it was legal it happened in back rooms, but it is legal now. Child porn is not, and to my knowledge, never has been legal here. The comparison does not work.
As per the idea that the most stridently, openly, bluntly, proudly pro choice candidate, a man who stated bluntly that signing the FOCA would be his first act (once it is passed by congress), a man who won running against McCain and the VERY well known positions of Palin, a man who everyone from Ms. Stanek to the CWA to the NRTL committee and untold others all described in no uncertain terms as the most pro choice (not that they used this term as a rule) Presidential candidate in history, was not elected by people who either 1) supported his position on abortion 2) could accept it…hardly a deal stopper for them, is the silliest thing I have ever read, and wishful thinking on a scale that stretches beyond belief. Even if many who voted for him are not pro choice activists, it says a lot that they consider it such a secondary issue that they could vote for him anyway. If you failed to notice, there were 5 state referendums on abortion issues in the last election. All lost.
I will switch the question around a bit. Why, when as the article above itself points out, my party (Democratic) which has made its positon on abortion rights very well known (it’s in the platform, which even if every member does not agree, the majority do, and thus it is there) which has the majority in the Senate, teh majority in the House, the majority of governorships, the majority of state house reps and senators nationwide, and the White House, all due to being elected by majorities who are well aware of where both parties stand, NOT use the money as described?
And please remember, respectfully, we are not all religious, and many who are belong to denominations and faiths that are pro choice, or are members of faiths that are not pro choice, yet are in disagreement with our denominations. Thus, a purely religious arguement does not hold a lot (any) water in a secular society, even one made up of religious individuals. Thanks. We have heard the arguements against for years, and we voted otherwise. Please remember that.
Kelly, Please remember that not all pro-life arguments are religious. Pleaase remember that our country has legalized and supported a lot of immoral activities that were later realized to be horrific. Please remember that the media blocked any negative information on Obama and smears Republicans at every opportunity.
Please remember that the American people are lied to about abortion and are given euthenisms such as “choice” to describe the killing of human beings. Please remember that the entire argument regarding abortion is a dishonest one, in which opposition to the killing of human beings is described as opposition to women.
Please remember that.
Lauren, I am totally aware that not everyone who is not pro choice is religious, but the vast majority are it seems, and I am used to hearing the vast majority of arguements against abortion rights being religiously based. And as we are not all religious, instantly discarded.
As per Obama, PLEASE, we knew exactly what we were getting and anyone who says we did not is in deep, deep denial. Deep. And as a former republican (lots of us around), well, we smeared outselves as religious fanatics and uncontrolled spenders. We did not need any help, and were guilty of both as charged.
Polling, the five referendum that failed, the almost non stop attention to the issue from the persons and groups mentioned earlier, His Own Website! And you ask me to ‘remember’ that we supposedly did not know? Lauren, we knew what he stood for, and the majority either supported it, or found it not so objectionable that they would not vote for him. “But, they did not know, they could not have known and voted for him” is just not true, as much as you might like it to be.
As as a former pro lifer turned pro choice proponant I can tell you it is NOT a lie. I don’t believe it is a killing (and before you ask, yes, I know all the embryology, fetal development, etc. etc.) and even if I did, I do NOT, Nor do you, have the right to make this decision for someone else. This is America. And before you go to the next step with my last statement, the woman carrying a fetus is a citizen with rights, not the fetus, and all the last gasp ‘personhood’ amendments will not make that the case.
If you don’t want to have an abortion, by all means, don’t have one. But if you think you will change the law to make it illegal for someone who has made the decision to have an abortion, thus putting her life at risk in some back alley, ruining her career/personal life, etc. making her carry and give birth (a painful and hardly risk free event itself) just because you think it is wrong, well you are deeply delusional. Don’t ‘Please remember’ that Lauren.
Just know it to be true.
Kelly, look at http://www.howobabagotelected.com
The “vast majority” of people were completely ignorant of Obama’s policies, they just heard “hope” and “change” and jumped on the bandwagan.
Aside from that, my opposition to abortion has always been stated in terms of logic and reason.
Your statements, on the other hand, are based on nothing solid.
You wouldn’t say “If you don’t like murder, don’t kill someone!” Why? Because we find the act so repugnant that we are appalled if anyone performs it. It would be ridiculous to tell all of society to be content with murder, or at the very most keep their contempt to themselves, yet this is exactly what you state when you say “don’t like abortion, don’t have one.”
Your next arguments are a series of fallacies appealing to emotion.
“She’ll do it anyway, and her life will be at risk”-
Illogical Assumption: We shouldn’t innact laws that some people will break.
“It will ruin her career”
Illogical Assumption: Uses an argument other than the foundation of Roe V. Wade which specified only that a woman has a right to bodily domain.
Secondary FlawL: Assumes continuing a pregnancy must result in raising a child.
“It will ruin her personal life”
Illogical Assumption: Uses an argument onther than the foundation of Roe V. Wade which specified only that a woman has a right to bodily domain, not a right to an unabashed perosnal life.
“Making her carry and give birth…just because you think it is wrong”
Illogical Assumption: Assumes that opposition to abortion is based on a judgement call by me, personally, and not as a result of examination of other moral tenants and rights.
To address that issue:
Abortion is really only about two things:
1. The mother’s right to bodily domain
2. The child’s right to life.
The crux of the issue is how we measure these rights. The pro-choicers say that the right to bodily domain trumps all other rights, while the pro-lifers say that the right to life trumps all other rights. We must examine which of these holds most closely to the other tennants of commonly held ethics.
Lauren, if you truly believe that about Obama, then we have most certainly won the abortion debate. It means that people do not listen to any of the anti choice activists, party platforms, or listen to people who are running for office, and I know better than that…and if true, all the better.
In any case, did the people who voted against those 5 referendums not understand what they were voting for? Keep deluding yourself if you wish…it only helps my side.
On the point of ruining a womans personal life, who are you to say she does not have a right to one as she sees fit? Once again, I never mentioned Roe. I is her body, and her convenience at issue. Period.
WHO said you got to decide this for anyone based on anyone elses individual or collective moral tenants or rights. It is her body, and it is and will remain her choice. Period.
As per the idea my arguements are based on nothing, yeah… I made up the 5 referendums, the CONSTANT harping by anti choice activists, etc.
I was not making my arguements purely (or mainly) on Roe. That was an assumption on your part. As I pointed out, abortion was legal in many states pre Roe. I was telling you why you will not be telling a woman what she can or cannot do, because it is unacceptable to say “you are pregnant, put your career on hold for months, endure the pain of childbirth, etc because I think you are carrying a child…the fact you dont is illrelevant, I have decided it”. You mention childbirth leading to parenthood as a secondary ‘flaw’ of my argument. Why did you assume I meant she would even want to raise said delivered child? Why do you assume anyone will want that child? They go begging in foster care every day. What if the child is not one of the cue little ones people want? What if it is born retarded and deformed? Why should I have to pay for it for years and years if it must exist in an expensive home? What if it is so developmentally disabled that it will never have any quality of life and is a financial burden for all its existance? You ask why you should have to pay for abortion? Why should I have to pay for this? There is a reason 90% of women who find out that their fetus will develop into a child with Downes syndrom abort you know.
Why should a pregnant woman have to go through the pain and inconvenience (and small, but real, health risk )of giving birth because you have decided it is the right thing? In a nutshell, you think that because you believe a fetus is a person, you get to say everyone else has to, and the consequences to their lives, health, happiness be d@$#D.
Not a chance. If the rebuttals you gave in your last post are the best you can do, I feel even better about the future of abortion/reproductive rights. You seem to think there is going to be some discussion on whether women have more rights than fetuses. Thats a settled issue as far as I am concerned.
Your correct in one thing, the woman does have an unquestionable right to bodily domain, and this involves her right to live as she sees fit, irregardless of a fetus.
A fetus is just a fetus carried by a woman who is pregnant. Period. Is abortion murder? I don’t think so, but I don’t see it as an issue, as each person must decide this for themself. We don’t allow murder (except for the death penalty, I suppose) because we all can agree that murder commonly done would lead to societal chaos, hideous expense, economic dislocation due to death of productive persons, etc. Thus, the comparison does not hold.
In any case, if you think it is murder and that it is wrong, fine, don’t have an abortion. I care not a bit about your moral positions, and on a position as personal as this, my intruding on your personal autonomy would be wrong. That said, you will not be telling anyone else how to live based on yours, as this is equally wrong. Period.
Kelly, You have made so many absurd statements I hardly no where to start.
I suppose we’ll start with the issues you raised apart from bodily domain. Let me be perfectly clear, there is aboslutely no legal standing for any of your emotional arguments. The law can not be twisted to support the “right” to a career or a party or any number of red herrings you may pull up.
The ONLY legal argument the most revisionist of judge could come up with regarded the rights strictly relating to the body.
So please, let’s stick to the issue at hand and stop throwing up random hypotheticals.
In that vein:
You state “You seem to think there is going to be some discussion on whether women have more rights than fetuses. Thats a settled issue as far as I am concerned.”
This is exactly the arguement. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Just because an activist court ruled in your favor, you can not assume that the issue is settled. Remember that Dred Scott was also “settled law.”
So, we need to examine the ground on which the “right to abortion” stands.
Assuming a right to abortion necessitates the belief that a child’s right to life can not supercede a mother’s right to privacy.
When we examine this belief within the context of our larger ethics, we find it to be inconsistent.
The right to life, when extended to children is contingent on a larger right to not be neglected. Because children can not care for themselves, they must be cared for by another.
The “problem” is that in order to receive this care, the children must invade their parents’ rights.
The parents can not maintain their right to privacy if doing so would cause their child to be without a home. For example, I could not lock my son in the back yard, exposing him to elements, and claim I was within my rights to do so because he was invading my right to privacy.
During pregnancy, the location that houses the child is the mother’s womb. Abortion is essentially exposing the child to the elements and claiming a right to privacy.
Because we do not accept this argument when dealing with born children, it follows that the argument is not accpetable with regards to unborn children.
***
As an aside, I find it quite interesting that your rational for murder leaves out the fact that it is wrong to take the life of another person. It is indeed frightening that you seem to care only about a person’s relationship to society and not the individual’s loss of life.
Suspend your delusion for a moment and understand that when speaking of moral opposition to murder, I am speaking of the general tennant that is is wrong to take the life of another person because it is wrong to end another’s life.
This is the tennant that carries over into abortion and makes your continued statement to simply “not have an abortion” absurd.
Kelly, thank you so much. I don’t have the energy anymore to do much more than stir things up now and then. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Lauren, why do you assume that everyone agrees that children are entitled to such rights? Are you familiar with Peter Singer at Princeton Univerisity? Not every childs life has value. Not every life has value. And only the individual can determine that, which is why the states are (slowly) beginning to recognize this and aid in assisted suicide, which is a polite form of murder I suppose, for the teminally ill (another thing that is coming to the whole nation, it is only a matter of time).
You, totally mistakenly, assume that ‘larger ethics’ of others will be used to tell pregnant women what to do with their own bodies (this includes a fetus). Why do you think I would ever allow this? In backward nations where such thinking still exists, we pay for providers to sail their and provide reproductive services, we pay for them ourselves, and some brave persons even provide the services ‘illegally’. This is where you are way off base Laruen…you think we still want to discuss this. We do not, for us, it is a settled rights issue. We just are focusing on doing all we can to cement it into law beyond the ability of anyone to every revoke it, and make it as available and affordable as possible.
The analogy to Dred Scott is off. Some things tend to get settled. Just as we will probably (in this universe, it is best to avoid total absolutes) not bring back slavery, or take back a womans right to vote, the right to repoructive choice is akin to the freedom from slavery the civil war lead to, not the earlier bad law of Dred Scott. The analogy works…you just got it backwards.
You also made a mistake when you assumed that when discussing a fetus, we were discussing a child, then went on to discuss this ‘childs’ home. I will never grant that, nor will I allow you to make that decision for me, so that is a non starter for a settled conversation from my sides point of view.
Kelly, regardless of insane supporters of infanticide, the social contract affords children the right to not be neglected. Outliners do not define the contract, and thankfully Singer is not making public policy regarding human rights.
I could care less that you don’t want to discuss this. Your movement is killing human beings. We’re not going to role over and take it. Consistent moral values dictate our lives. There is absolutely no reason why these consistent ethics should not be extended to pregnancy.
The fact that you are so blinded by your support for killing human beings is beyond saddening. You refuse to examine your views with any degree of intellectual honesty. You are beyond hope because you refuse to look at ethics. Thankfully for humanity not everyone is so willfully ignorant.
Lauren, I have a degree in biology, have spent years studying ethics (from Burke to Kant to Descartes and all points in between). I know what I believe and why. Once, you and I would have agreed on most of these issues, so I have no delusions that your side will entirely role over and take it…despite a history where this does seem to happen. I am just saying that from our side, this is intellectually settled. We worked to get a pro choice president, and pro choic party in power in both houses, and we do. Most of society, especially the young, is like minded, and we are tired of being told that our lives, our bodies, our health, and our sexual and reproductive choices are not to be allowed or that we will carry a fetus to term due to someone elses religious or moral hangups. Finally, and if you ‘get’ nothing else, ‘get’ this; we are not a society with one construct, and many of us have no interest, or willingness, to let the constructs that dictate how you will live your lives dictate the terms to us and how we will be living ours. Thats about it Lauren. Just live your life, and we will live ours. I am willing to let you just do as you wish. I have no right to do otherwise. Abortion is not a subject which we agree upon the nature of (nor do I really care if we agree), nor will we agree upon unless you change your opinions (I did). There is no agreed upon common ground after all. I wont dictate you have to have a family of a certain size and forced abortion, please don’t tell others how to live and what their moral values will be.
Kelly, from your previous posts, I can only say that your “years” studying ethics have done you little good. Your argument seems to be that you think abortion should be legal because you think abortion should be legal.
Rationalize til you’re blue in the face, but your own rejection of morality doesn’t mean that society as a whole does not opporate within a social construct.
You may be an outliner like Peter Singer, but again, outliners do not dictate what is socially acceptable.
Kelly: “Finally, and if you ‘get’ nothing else, ‘get’ this; we are not a society with one construct, and many of us have no interest, or willingness, to let the constructs that dictate how you will live your lives dictate the terms to us and how we will be living ours. Thats about it Lauren. Just live your life, and we will live ours. I am willing to let you just do as you wish. I have no right to do otherwise.”
Okay cool. How about you “let” me not pay any taxes? How about you “let” me block the entrances to abortion clinics?
If you are advocating a total anarchistic society, I admire your consistency when you claim that abortion should not be made illegal. The argument over the morality of the action would be unecessary and could just be academic in nature if you were to take this stance.
Of course if you are NOT advocating a complete anarchistic society, then the problem with abortion isnt really about the violation of an universal ethical system, but about the failure of consistency in light of the other morals you DO support.
As it stands, and as I imagine you would hold it to stand under the assumption that you hold the generally accepted ethical system as preservable, it is both illegal and immoral to neglect a human indigent. It is generally accepted that the term “human indigent” includes humans with a limited mental capacity below that of many animals and humans with a limited capacity to feel pain. This protection against neglect partially infringes on the caretaker’s rights as well.
I have no problem with someone protecting abortion if that person extends a consistent view to other actions and protects murder and theft. Its when you decide that abortion is okay, but murder isnt, for no discernable reason that I have issues.
Kelly: “this is intellectually settled.”
Settled maybe, but not intellectually. The pro-choice argument is the argument of an animal in that the argument stems from what “seems” to be the case and/or instinctual response.
Lauren, why do you think we have any interest in your societal views? Why do you think we will allow you to dictate to us how we will live? Where did you get the idea that you will set the agenda for us? Your morality is your issue, not mine, nor will I allow you to force it on me. A painful fact for you prehaps, but a fact you will have to deal with, nonetheless. We do not share a common moral construct, and we will not have one forced on us.
Kelly,
The issue isnt operating within “our” social construct, but to operate within your own. Our side is confident that nearly every American holds the same basic premises that lead to the obvious conclusion that abortion is in fact immoral and should be made illegal.
(But on tangental note, why should your moral code dictate what we do? Why is your “moral construct” any more important than ours?)
Kelly, Olier took the words out of my mouth.
Kelly said, “ Just live your life, and we will live ours. I am willing to let you just do as you wish. I have no right to do otherwise.
If only! what a liar Kelly is! Is the pre-born child free to live his life? Is Kelly willing to let every pre-born child do just as he wishes? She has no right to do otherwise.
Kelly should say (to be consistent), “Just live your life, and we will continue to kill our children. We will continue to kill your countrymen. We will even kill your grandchildren if we can convince your children to do so. We will continue to turn doctors into killers, mothers into mutilators, girls into sluts, Christians into heathens, and Americans into compost. We don’t believe in a right to life.”
Jon, the ‘pre born’ (you meant to say fetus) does not come into this. We are discussing the rights of women to detemine their own fates. You mistakenly believe this is a discussion about fetuses. It is not…much as you might wish it to be.
Oliver, I never said my constructs were more more important that yours. Did I say you (or any woman) had to have an abortion against her will? I am forcing my beliefs on any pregant woman you know? No! I am not. I expect, and WILL legally receive, the same respect for my beliefs. Your blocking an abortion clinic impinges on business, a womans rights, and does no more good than a woman blocking your entrance to a medical office of your choice. Your taxes benefit you by allowing you to have roads, military, civil servents, etc. I never said that we should not all work towards what is considered a common good, thank you very much.
Oliver, if you honestly, honestly believe that most Americans think as you do, I only have to ask where you live, and where you get such an idea…I used to be an evangelical pro life conservative. Unlike a lot of my pro choice friends, I do not believe that most anti choice people are exceptionally naive, or the religious freaks they assume you to be. That said, no offense, I am sad to say that this is the most naive thing I have ever read. Most Americans place personal freedom, even freedom they do not agree with, as a value higher than all others. And most of us who are younger do not hold to the older moral/social/religious views of our grandparenst (demographics bear this out). We are either pro choice, or “its not right for, me, but I don’t want to make it illegal” or “I think it is wrong, but, I am not going to make that decision for someone else” ala Gov. Sibelius. I respect your convictions, but I am sure of this; you have misread this nation. The one you described would not act, sound, behave, watch the entertainment, or vote as it has, and it would not have a President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, or Senator Reid.
Kelly, I’m afraid that you’re on the wrong site. This is a pro-life website. On this website, we often discuss current dangers for pre-born children.
Kelly: “Oliver, I never said my constructs were more more important that yours. Did I say you (or any woman) had to have an abortion against her will? I am forcing my beliefs on any pregant woman you know? No! I am not. I expect, and WILL legally receive, the same respect for my beliefs. Your blocking an abortion clinic impinges on business, a womans rights, and does no more good than a woman blocking your entrance to a medical office of your choice. Your taxes benefit you by allowing you to have roads, military, civil servents, etc. I never said that we should not all work towards what is considered a common good, thank you very much.”
Kelly, please. You claim that you have studied ethics, so you would understand this.
You claim that by making abortion illegal that the “pro-lifers” are subjecting you to our “moral construct” and that we do not have that right. Your words were to “just live [our] lives, and [you] would live” yours. So my question is why can you subject me to your “moral construct” by protecting business? Why can you subject me to your “moral construct” of forcing me to pay for roads and schools I dont use? You are trying to draw a distinction by claiming that abortion is an optional moral stance, but that all the generally accepted moral stances are not. Who, as you have claimed, is to decide? You I guess?
To put it more bluntly, how is my desire to prevent an abortion any more or less important than your desire to force me to pay for public services that I do not use.
Or, what exactly constitutes a “common good?” Many Americans dont believe in progressive taxes, and believe a flat tax to be the more just system. Why again are your moral constructs more important?
Kelly: “…you have misread this nation…”
No, its not that I have “misread” this nation, but that you have misread my post.
Did I claim that Americans believe abortion should be made illegal? Check back on it Kelly. Oh what the heck, Ill do it for you.
Oliver :”…nearly every American holds the same basic premises that lead to the obvious conclusion that abortion is in fact immoral and should be made illegal.”
I think your misplaced assumption is that these same Americans who hold those basic premises have the capability or desire to properly derive the obvious conclusion I spoke of. You Kelly likely hold the same premises to be true. The problem is that you do not have the ability or desire to personally derive the obvious conclusion. Abortion is wrong because it is the neglect by a caretaker of a human indigent.
Kelly: “…and most of us who are younger do not hold to the older moral/social/religious views of our grandparenst (demographics bear this out). We are either pro choice, or “its not right for, me, but I don’t want to make it illegal” or “I think it is wrong, but, I am not going to make that decision for someone else…”
I think its wrong, but I am not going to make that decision for someone else huh. Again, I ask you, do you mean to take up an Anarchistic Communist society? Do you truly believe this and do you apply it to all other actions? You apparently believe that you have the right to tax me and make the “decision” for me right there, right Kelly? How is this any different? If there is a morally unjust action that HURTS another human,as a society, and again unless you support anarchy you as well, condemn the action and make the action illegal. It is illegal to steal, so we make the “decision” for the theives for them. It is illegal to murder so we make the “decision” for the murderers. Its is illegal to not pay taxes, so we make the “decision” for the tax-avoider.
Its clear that you havent spent much time debating the issue with other people, so Ill lay off a bit, although I would suggest that you drop a bit of your bravado. You have to delve deeper than the typical platitudes thrown out by either side. For example, hearing “its MY body” or “its MY choice!” is about as convincing as “but its MURDER.”
There are essentially two issues of concern from both sides. Does a preborn have any rights and do those rights have enough weight to partially infringe on the mother’s right to bodily autonomy?
Kelly: “The one you described would not act, sound, behave, watch the entertainment, or vote as it has, and it would not have a President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, or Senator Reid.”
Ive already called you on this. Americans vote for their candidates for a myriad of reasons. There are Americans out there who dont really know what stance they have on abortion because it doesnt matter to them. There are Americans out there who vote for issues that are more important in general to them than abortion. There are Americans out there who have only voted Democrat for the past 40 years, despite the changing climate of abortion. To claim that Americans support every position an elected official holds in equal number to the number of Americans who voted for said official is glossing over quite a few “X” factors.
And by the way, preborn is just as, actually more accurate of a term to cover the aborted. Not all abortions are done to a fetus, as the fetal stage doesnt begin until 10 weeks. In fact, I think most abortions occur before 10 weeks, so again, you might want to drop the level of confidence.
Kelly: “I used to be an evangelical pro life conservative.”
Good for you. Who is supposed to be impressed?
Oliver said, “[P]reborn is just as, actually more accurate of a term to cover the aborted. Not all abortions are done to a fetus…”
Kelly should also note that on this website, while pro-lifers may indeed be in favour of humane treatment of animals, the seal fetus is not really a great concern of theirs. Pro-lifers are more concerned about people, whether killing them is okay or not.
Kelly says “You mistakenly believe this is a discussion about fetuses. It is not…much as you might wish it to be.”
Tell that to the 4000 killed every day in America.
I am having computer problems and difficulty with net hookup. Please pardon this, as it is a test to see if I can post.
Laruen, Oliver, when time permits, I will come back and answer some of your questions. It has been interesting, but work calls. I will mention that we are working on totally different assumptions, and not even agreeing on basic definitions. We do not share the same core values, and I will not allow you to dictate yours on me. Comparing taxes and abortion Oliver is an example. We can all agree that taxes are a necessary thing. We cannot all agree that abortion is wrong, much less murder. By the way, I only mention that I am a former pro life evangelical because I wanted you to know that I understand you are not all a bunch or violent, clinic attacking, idiots, which is how much of the pro choice side sees you. I even realize that you operate out of a core of basic kindness and a moral code. In brief, I understand you, and wanted you to know that.
That said, you are way off on your assumptions about this society. If we shared the same basic moral understandings that would lead logically to the conclusion that abortion is unacceptable, Terri Schiavo would still be alive.
A personal friend who is a republican conservative pro life activist (we argue like cats and dogs, but we somehow get along. People can have even passionate exchanges, as we have, and not devolve into name calling, rudeness or incivility. I have been pleasantly suprised to see that such has been the case here by the way) was stunned when the nation not only did not rally to his side in the Schiavo case, but when polling showed the exact opposite. He was stunned, and, hurt. He is my friend, and thus I took no pleasure in this. The realization that we (the nation) were not who he thought we were was a shcok to him.
No Oliver, we don’t all place the same value on, as you put it, the human indigent, as the above case shows. Witness the beginnings of a right to die movement winning at the ballot box on the west coast. We do not even agree as to whether a fetus is a person. Whatever its stage in early development, I refer to all stages as a fetus when you are correct, there are terms such as zygote, embryo, etc for different stages of development. Mea Culpa. As a nation, we don’t all share your values Oliver. And the ones who do, often do so, as I said, in a “It’s not right for me…but” kind of way that is far from the passion needed to win a cause.
You compared my ‘it’s my body, my choice’ attitude to ‘but it’s murder’. Well, I know a woman who was quite indifferent to the whole issue until a person full of ‘bravado’ said, tears in eyes, just that to her. She is stridently pro life/anti choic now. And, “my body, my choice” can have equal power, and I have seen it myself, with that large group in the middle who have given this very little consideration.
It has been an interesting interchange. I wish you well, and support your right to your beliefs and your choices on how to live your life. I hope someday you will be able to do likewise with me on a topic so central to how we live our lives, and on which we do not as a society share core values or understandings. It is an interesting site. I doubt I will post much more. Not because I don’t feel capable of defending my points, and none of you are shrinking violets either, but I see no point in argument with those whom I disagree with for mere arguments sake. As I said, I respect your right to your opinions and choices in life. I hope someday it may be recipricated.
Oh Kelly, get off of your high horse. “As I said, I respect your right to your opinions and choices in life. I hope someday it may be recipricated”
This isn’t a matter where we can just all agree to disagree and say Kumbaya.
You want us to agree with you. That’s not “live and let live,” that’s “I’m right, and you’re wrong and you should all agree with me.”
You don’t respect our right ot our opinions, you already said you believe the matter is settled and that we should just all abandon our beliefs. You are being incredibly disingenous in dodging the fact that your pro-choice view isn’t consistent with your other beliefs, regardless of any larger social construct.
Kelly,
I dont mean this in a mean way, but you arent reading my posts! What the heck?
I did not say that everyone shares the same premises AND the same faculty to interpret those premises. I just said that everyone shares the same premises period. You brought up Terry Schiavo as an example of where people diverge on respect for human indigents. Again, the treatment of Terry was another misinterpretation of our basic premises about humanity. Terry was starved to death, but if you ask the average American, he/she would think that Terry was just taken off of “life support.” She was simply denied food. This is again a case of Americans not understanding the issue properly and not consulting their premises. If we can starve Terry, why cant we starve the elderly or the poor or unwanted children or the children born without brains or other limiting disabilities?
Kelly: “We can all agree that taxes are a necessary thing.”
No, we cant. You are blanketing the issue to make your point. You were the one earlier arguing that we cant even all agree that infanticide or child molestion is immoral. Taxes are an example of a case that many Americans disgaree with. You dont want to face the fact. You are pushing your moral construct on others all the time and its fine when YOU do it, but not fine for US to do it.
Kelly: “Witness the beginnings of a right to die movement winning at the ballot box on the west coast.”
What does this have to do with indigents? If people want to kill themselves, have at it. If a person wants food, water and shelter, they are never denied it, except in the case of Terry. Then again, most people are very confused on the issue.
Kelly: “I doubt I will post much more”
Right. Of course not. Go on living your inconsistent contradictory life. If you leave with anything in your head, question why it is okay to force people to pay for public schools who do not use them, that its okay to prevent child molestors from doing so, or to prevent drug users from abusing drugs, but its not okay to force the moral constructs that you disgagree with. Also consider that every American shares the same premises to conclude properly on abortion, but they do NOT all share the faculty to interpret these premises properly.
Oliver, a last thought then. Keep insisting that “every American shares the same premisues to conclude ‘properly’ on abortion.” We do not all look at the world with your moral positions. Such denial only helps my side, since you cannot even hope to overcome a worldview you don’t even understand. And if you actually do believe it, all the better. You wont be deciding if my ‘interpretation’ is proper.
My position on taxes and public schools stand the test of logic and reality. Society has concluded that a public school system helps us all, even if your kids don’t use it. Society has concluded that we need taxes to run the government. Society has not concluded that abortion is should not be a legal right. Different issues, and not a fair comparison. Sorry. I tried to leave on a polite, respectful note. Take it or leave it. But be prepared if this is how you approach the issues to lose in the court of public opinion. That, not that you are not entitled to your opinions, was my point. Bye.
Kelly: “We do not all look at the world with your moral positions.”
Did I say that the whole world shares my exact moral system? Of course not. Please read what I post Kelly. It may help you in the future as well to develop a smidge of reading comprehension. There is a kind of rudeness in an argument that is born from ignoring the words of the opponent.
I said that the people in America share the same moral premises enough to deduce that abortion is immoral. Its simple.
Indigent human lives are treated with respect on the level of normal humans, even when there is limited brain function or the ability to feel pain.
It is immoral for a caregiver to neglect the indigent in his/her care, even at the cost of protecting the caregiver’s rights in part.
Most Americans share this point of view.
Kelly: “My position on taxes and public schools stand the test of logic and reality. Society has concluded that a public school system helps us all, even if your kids don’t use it. Society has concluded that we need taxes to run the government. Society has not concluded that abortion is should not be a legal right. Different issues, and not a fair comparison. ”
So the bottom line then is whatever society decides is acceptable?
So if we can convince society that abortion should be illegal you would quit the “do what you want” argument and continue to assert that because society upholds this belief that its okay to force the moral construct?
See, you have to understand that your argument when you came in here yesterday was “how dare the pro-life side force their moral construct onto other people?” Now you are saying that as long as it is a law, such as taxes, that forcing a moral construct is okay? So I guess in answer to your original question, we “dare” to force “our moral construct” onto you in that we want to make it a law. You apparently wouldnt have a problem with it then right?
I like the “withstood the test of logic” statement. What logic? Society supports it so its okay to force on everyone? Remember when slavery was forced on people? Was it okay then? And if so, was it okay to change the law? And if so, why would it not be okay to change the abortion law? Oh right, because you say so. Makes perfect logical sense to me!
Kelly: “Sorry. I tried to leave on a polite, respectful note. Take it or leave it. But be prepared if this is how you approach the issues to lose in the court of public opinion. That, not that you are not entitled to your opinions, was my point. Bye.”
Again, you leave without really establishing your point.
Why did you post originally if you claim that you are leaving because you dont want to argue a point that cant be changed? You started the argument Kelly, and now youre leaving under the false guise of futility. Did you just change your mind about the success of argument in two days?
I find it bizarre that so few pro-choicers are willing to construct a consistent and logical argument for abortion. Notice how Kelly here never really gave an explanation as to why a preborn has no rights, or why those rights if established can be violated when we cant do the same to infants or other indigents. She has no argument. How disapointing.
Calling anyone else arrogant is the pot calling the kettle black Oliver.
Saying anyone else does not comprehend what someone else says after your comments is just funny.
You will hate this. You will probably ignore it. At best you will dance around it. Here it is.
NO, There is no agreement that “indigent” beings deserve the same treatment as normal people. THAT is why Terri Schiavo is dead, and the politicians whot MISREAD the nations thougths on this paid for it. I said you would hate it. It was frustration that you keep insisting things that are NOT true that was frustrating and made me decide the conversations was probably to be fruitless. We are NOT as a nation holding this set of ideas that you think would lead a thinking person not to be pro choice. That you obviously think we do is very telling of your mindset of “but, it SHOULD be…”
As per the law and taxes, you expose the error of your arguement yourself Oliver. Humans (meaning those of us born and living) in a society make comtracts, personal and national. We also have laws and legal rulings that say people (As above described) have certain rights that majorities cannot take away. Such as the right to privacy, and thus to abortion. I never said society was to be without framework or laws. Far from it.
The tax analogy just does not work, you do on some deep level know that I hope.
You still think we as a society share a set of presumptions that would lead to your understanding on abortion. Once again, we do not. And to be blunt, if a child or an elderly or other person was in a situation where there existance was either painful for them, or to expensive to have value (financial or otherwise) to the society as a whole, the answer to your question is that there is nothing stopping us from giving them food ro treatment. If they were in the prime of health, and a productive individual, society would have an interest in seeing them fed/healed. I fetus (at whatever stage in development) does not meet this definition.
Again, it this was why I was so frustrated and decided to leave (I am finding your answers that seem to imply that just saying a thing over and over makes a thing real oddly entertaining, thus I came back). We really do not share the same moral ethical precepts that would lead to most people coming to your point of view Oliver. I dont say that with malice. I will even grant that it might be a more harmonious society if we did.
Once not that long ago, yes, we did. I will agree on that. But not now.
Ever notce that every example of a staggering loss at the referendum ballot box, the house, the senate, the presidency, the Schiavo case, the right to die movement, the public support for embryonic stem cell research, is, according to you, due to a lack of understanding of the precepts that should lead to a pro life position? This either implies that people are not following this to the logical conclusion and coming to your opinion (what does that say about your opinion of most persons?) or that the presumption that the overwhelming majority share these moral premises is not accurate. The flaws in your arguement are self evident. And, there always seems to be an excuse I see.
Some lives have less value than others Oliver. Thats why people are taken off nutrition all the time, every day all across the nation. Before you go off on “how can you decide that?” the answer is that it is financial, and their rights are superceeded by the rights of others not to be burdened with them. As I said, happens every day, and will continue to do so, for the reasons given. Just like abortion.
This is fruitless at this point. You want to talk about morals, and I am only interested in the rights of persons to live as they wish. Saying we do not have an unlimited right to do so is no arguement Oliver. I never said it was unlimited, just that abortion is within the limits and should be. It is a waste of the time of us both if you are going to keep arguing we are a different nation than we are, and if I will not yield that a fetus (at whatever state of development) is not a person with rights equal to an adult, so, goodbye.
Laruen, I just saw your post. Actually, you are quite wrong. I DO respect your beliefs, and accordingly would be on the front lines with you if someone was trying to force you to personally have an abortion you did not want. You have a right to your opinions. You just don’t have a right to force them on others and tell them how to live.
And,I think my last posts show that my pro choice opinions are very much in line with my other beliefs. I see no contraditions there.
I would have addressed your comment earlier, but did not see it. And for the reasons I gave at the end of my last post, I will leave now. Goodbye.
Kelly: “Calling anyone else arrogant is the pot calling the kettle black Oliver.”
Doesnt make it untrue. Remember when you tried to call out Jon on what abortion hurts? You called him out arrogantly and were way off the mark.
Kelly: “Saying anyone else does not comprehend what someone else says after your comments is just funny.”
To be fair Kelly, you misread my post by claiming that I believe that all people or Americans share the same moral premises as I do in entirity. You actually did it two times in a row.
Kelly: “NO, There is no agreement that “indigent” beings deserve the same treatment as normal people. THAT is why Terri Schiavo is dead”
No, as I explained earlier to you, Terry is dead because of the spin job done by her filthy husband. If you ask most Americans Kelly, they would think Terry was simply moved off of life support and not withheld food and water.
Now you obviously disagree, and there really is no way to argue about this specific case without some sort of poll, so lets just address the general statement that you made that indigent humans do not necessarily deserve equal treatment as independent humans. Granted, you could split hairs and argue that indigent humans do not necessarily have the right to own land, so you could claim that they do not necessarily have exactly the same rights, but lets specific the relevant parts. Indigent humans deserve care and this is upheld through standard ethics and laws.
Infants are indigents, and it is immoral and illegal for the appropriate caregiver to neglect them. Those with mental or physical handicaps are indigents, and it is immoral and illegal for the appropriate caregiver to neglect them. The same extends to the elderly and children born without brains and so on so forth. Your argument that Terry was denied these rights only reaffirms that the left “pro-death” side of the argument misinterpreted the morals and laws established for these cases. Its one thing to cut life support, but its another to withhold food and water.
Kelly: “It was frustration that you keep insisting things that are NOT true that was frustrating and made me decide the conversations was probably to be fruitless. We are NOT as a nation holding this set of ideas that you think would lead a thinking person not to be pro choice. That you obviously think we do is very telling of your mindset of “but, it SHOULD be…””
Kelly you have yet to refute my point. You are using the symptoms of the problem to argue your point. In other words, you are using circular reasoning. Terry is a problem of the misintepretation, not the norm and really isnt applicable anyways because as I recall, Terry claimed that she wanted to die. What would have been the case had she adamantly claimed that she did NOT want to be starved to death? Remember that preborns have had no voice in the matter, unlike Terry.
Kelly: “As per the law and taxes, you expose the error of your arguement yourself Oliver. Humans (meaning those of us born and living) in a society make comtracts, personal and national. We also have laws and legal rulings that say people (As above described) have certain rights that majorities cannot take away. Such as the right to privacy, and thus to abortion. I never said society was to be without framework or laws. Far from it.”
No you said that we cannot force our “moral construct” on you, and that we should all just do what we want and not force things on each other. Im pointing to your now apparent hypocrisy that you support a moral system that DOES in fact force a “moral construct” onto Americans. Your argument so far is that “its okay because its the law.” So were you just making shit up when you said all that about “moral constructs” or were you parroting the cute guy in Contemporary Morals 301?
“I mean, like, we should all do what, you know, we think, right? There arent, um, universal morals. We should just live our lives dude.”
Kelly: “The tax analogy just does not work, you do on some deep level know that I hope.”
My tax analogy does work because you are forcing your belief system, your moral belief system I might add, on Americans who do not support it. Ill ask pointedly again one more time, why is it okay to force certain moral agendas onto Americans but not others? Your original claim was that we should never do it, but now you are arbitrarily deciding one thing over the other.
And if you argue that taxes are not a moral issue, then you have grossly misunderstood morals.
Kelly: “You still think we as a society share a set of presumptions that would lead to your understanding on abortion. Once again, we do not. And to be blunt, if a child or an elderly or other person was in a situation where there existance was either painful for them, or to expensive to have value (financial or otherwise) to the society as a whole, the answer to your question is that there is nothing stopping us from giving them food ro treatment.”
So a mother can starve their child if that mother finds the child to no longer be financially viable? Its okay to not pay medicaid, according to law, when we feel like it? Now be careful, I am not arguing potentials, you are saying right now explicitly that there is NOTHING to stop individual members of our society from paying Social Security, Medicaid, child support, general taxes, food for their children, food for the adult handicapped in their legal care, etc etc and so on?
Are you really trying to claim that NOTHING compells our society, legally or ethically, to punish a person who allows his/her child to starve or neglects the elderly in his/her care?
Please Kelly. Really, please.
Kelly: “If they were in the prime of health, and a productive individual, society would have an interest in seeing them fed/healed. I fetus (at whatever stage in development) does not meet this definition.”
Oh snap, I forgot that we lived in “Atlas Shrugged.” Who is John Gault Kelly?!?
And youre the one saying that Ive misread America. Look at the laws we have Kelly! We pay for the injured and unemployable! We pay for the poor! We pay for children, through SSI, who have no hope of recovery. This country isnt some pie in the sky ideal of a Utilitarian. We are currently VERY far away from that! So again, I implore you, why do we support and protect all of these injured and sick people who have NO hope of becoming anything better in many cases, yet we do not protect a preborn?
Kelly: “…we really do not share the same moral ethical precepts that would lead to most people coming to your point of view Oliver. ”
Well, if you believe in Utilitarianism, you may be right. Of course, I believe even in Utilitarianism, there is a belief that the unborn offer the greatest of all potential for “usefulness,” so who knows really. Nevertheless, our country is NOT structured, even in the slightest, that way. You will find it pretty obvious too when you get your first check. Even if you are living in poverty it is expected that you contribute to the “national good” of protecting indigent humans, even those not capable of recovery.
Kelly: “Ever notce that every example of a staggering loss at the referendum ballot box, the house, the senate, the presidency, the Schiavo case, the right to die movement, the public support for embryonic stem cell research, is, according to you, due to a lack of understanding of the precepts that should lead to a pro life position? This either implies that people are not following this to the logical conclusion and coming to your opinion (what does that say about your opinion of most persons?) or that the presumption that the overwhelming majority share these moral premises is not accurate. The flaws in your arguement are self evident. And, there always seems to be an excuse I see.”
My flaws are self-evident? I think youre confusing your post with the Declaration of Independence.
No there are no flaws, because you already posted the “out” to the apparent paradox. Most Americans do not have the mental faculty to naturally derive the conclusions. The issue needs to be brought to them in a clear, concise and consistent format. The problem is that many pro-lifers try to argue with their hearts and not with the brains too often.
Also….again I have to ask you, why on earth are you bringing up the “right to die” movement? What does this have to do with the respect and protection of human indigents and therefore abortion. I already posted on this, please read what I say.
Kelly:”Some lives have less value than others Oliver. Thats why people are taken off nutrition all the time, every day all across the nation.”
See, I am going to call you on this. Where are your statistics for this? Every day, all the the time, across the nation? In Terry’s case, again and I speak from memory, I believe she WANTED to die, supposedly.
Kelly: “Before you go off on “how can you decide that?” the answer is that it is financial, and their rights are superceeded by the rights of others not to be burdened with them. As I said, happens every day, and will continue to do so, for the reasons given. Just like abortion.”
I think you may be confusing a “life support” system for basic food and water. People are not withheld food and water every day. The Government pays, every day, to feed and to provide water for millions of Americans. If as you say we make our decisions on financial reasons, explain the origin and support for food stamps. Explain medicaid. I know the world you want it to be, kill the weak and support the strong, but that doesnt hold CONSISTENT with the world view of our politicians and general citizens and is not CONSISTENT with the legal system currently adminstered.
Kelly: “This is fruitless at this point. You want to talk about morals, and I am only interested in the rights of persons to live as they wish.”
You are not interested in the rights of persons to live as they wish Kelly. How many times do I need to call you on this platitude? What if I wish to murder all of my neighbors? What if I want to not pay my taxes? You obviously dont support these things. Why do you keep saying that you do? Do you understand how…jejune (for the lack of a better word)…you appear?
Kelly: “Saying we do not have an unlimited right to do so is no arguement Oliver. I never said it was unlimited, just that abortion is within the limits and should be.”
So what is it Kelly? I dont understand you. Do we have the right to do as we please, or do we not? You are here saying that we do not, so again, why is it wrong to force the moral construct of abortion on others when, according to you, we can force other moral constructs? Remember that your original argument was nothing more than claiming that it is not right to force moral constructs on others PERIOD. Now you are qualifying. When you qualify and make exceptions, you are leaving the possibility that abortion too can be an exception to this rule.
Kelly: “It is a waste of the time of us both if you are going to keep arguing we are a different nation than we are, and if I will not yield that a fetus (at whatever state of development) is not a person with rights equal to an adult”
Kelly you are the one here arguing that we value lives based on their financial contribution and that we treat them accordingly. This worldview does not in any way correlate with the American legal system or the American moral system.
Also, for a Biology major, you seem to really struggle with the development of an preborn human. It isnt a question of “whatever stage of development” a fetus is “at,” it is a question of whether or not it is even a fetus. You claimed that fetus is more accurate earlier, and just cant own up to the fact that it is in fact less accurate. Not only do you not know your biology, but you also are stubborn about it.
Kelly: “goodbye.”
Right. This time I believe you! No really!
Kelly: “You just don’t have a right to force [your beliefs] on others and tell them how to live.”
I honestly dont know whether the term “child” or “animal” is appropriate in measuring your mental faculty.
Kelly, laws are ABOUT forcing beliefs on others, whether or not the laws are themselves justified. Grow up some more before you come back and post. Sheesh.