Dean Urges Dems to Court Pro-Life Voters

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dean Urges Dems to Court Pro-Life Voters

Boy, you're back and taking no prisoners, aren't you.

Since when do we measure the loss of rights by how "great a loss" it is to you?

One could certainly use your very argument to oppose abortion on demand, couldn't one? "Surely common sense would dictate taking reasonable measures to protect yourself from pregnancy."

Watch out Fizz. Willingness to deny rights that you think are "no great loss" will come back on you.

I'm not talking about whether that right would be a great loss to me, but whether anyone would consider it a great loss. How many people not only want the hypothetical right to participate in a potentially dangerous activity without taking safety precautions, but would also exercise that right?

And no, I don't believe my argument could be used to oppose abortion. Of course common sense dictates that someone should take reasonable measures to prevent unplanned pregnancy but as we all know, contraception is not 100% effective and therefore even taking sensible precautions will not necessarily protect someone from unplanned pregnancy.

How far should your argument about personal choice be taken? Take a hypothetical situation in which a road is unsafe to be travelled on -- should the government authority responsible close the road to ensure people's safety, or should they merely post a sign advising people the road is unsafe and leave the choice of whether to travel there to the individual? Here's another example - the government regulates the supply of prescription drugs because some drugs are potentially too dangerous to be available to the public. Doesn't that undermine personal choice?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think if abortion is made illigial then so should working on a sunday, divorce, swearing, anyone going to a church OTHER then a christian one and all those other commandments that i have no idea about. Because thats where this whole fairytale started from.

There are plenty of people who oppose abortion for reasons other than those linked to religion, you know.

 

[xtal]

I like this medium.

If it were 100% pro-lifers: think of what the world would be like.
Yeesh.
And if it were 100% pro-choicers: think of what the world COULD HAVE BEEN.
Yeesh.

I like the medium of 50% pro-life. And I like the 50% pro-choicers. Control under the control of others.

 

[dazzlingamy]

There are plenty of people who oppose abortion for reasons other than those linked to religion, you know.

ok then. like what?

why else would people be against abortion if they didn't believe the feutus has a "soul" or is "alive"??

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

ok then. like what?

why else would people be against abortion if they didn't believe the feutus has a "soul" or is "alive"??

Before I reply, a quick question -- your comment would seem to imply you don't believe a fetus is alive until it's born, am I interpreting that correctly?

True, one of the main reasons for opposing abortion is a belief that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception. But this doesn't have to be a religious belief, it can also be based on simple logic -- we would all agree that a baby is alive when it's born, correct? But at what point does it become alive - is it at the moment of birth? Is it at the moment of conception? Is it at some arbitrary point in between?

For many people to suggest a baby isn't alive until it leaves the mother's body is absurd, this would imply that abortion at 40 weeks gestation is acceptable when most rational people find that idea abhorrent. So if the baby is alive before it is born, at what point does it become alive? Is it at the moment of conception or at some arbitrary point between conception and birth? If the latter, how do we determine the point at which life begins?

All this by way of saying some people believe that life begins at conception because they don't believe it begins at birth and they don't find the idea that life begins at some arbitrary point between conception and birth convincing. They therefore believe the fetus is alive from the moment of conception, and believing that taking life is wrong (which is a moral, not necessarily a religious belief) they believe abortion is wrong.

Sorry if this made no sense, I've been awake most of the night writing an economics essay. Feel free to ask me to clarify if the argument wasn't too clear.

 

[dazzlingamy]

i believe the fetus is alive in the sense that trees, cells and plants are alive. They are not a sentient being.

I believe that until the baby can live on its own, breathe its own air, pump its own heart (like around 6 or so months, like in premature babies who are dlievered early etc) then it is a part of a womans body and she can decide whether or not to abort it.

But im not arguing about whether ppl believe a baby is alive or not, im arguing that calling it murder is wrong. AND my main point is that laws shouldnt be passed on relgious beliefs.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

i believe the fetus is alive in the sense that trees, cells and plants are alive. They are not a sentient being.

Does that belief apply to a fetus throughout pregnancy, or is there a point at which you believe it becomes a "sentient being."

I believe that until the baby can live on its own, breathe its own air, pump its own heart (like around 6 or so months, like in premature babies who are dlievered early etc) then it is a part of a womans body and she can decide whether or not to abort it.

So do you believe that the legal limit for abortion should be dependent on the age of the most premature baby to have survived? And would that mean that in the future if babies could survive being more more prematurely than is currently possible, you would support changing the time limit for abortion? For that matter, do you actually have a fixed opinion about when abortion should be available until -- should it be until the baby is born or do you support an earlier limit and if so, what?

But im not arguing about whether ppl believe a baby is alive or not, im arguing that calling it murder is wrong. AND my main point is that laws shouldnt be passed on relgious beliefs.

I agree -- laws shouldn't be passed based on religious beliefs. But I gave you an example of how someone could object to abortion without considering any kind of religious belief.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm against abortion becauise I think it's murder. I'm not about to support what I consider murder so that there will be "safer places and better conditions under which murder can be committed".



I promise i won't get into a slinging match, but you just CANNOT say that. Am i right in thinking you believe abortion is murder because you'rereligious and thats what you've been taught? Because if you were in anyway scientifical (which has basically overturned and proven wrong nearly ever christian belief out there) then you would realise that its not murder, its a procedure to get rid of a mass of cells from a woman because she isn't ready to have a child and doesn't want to give it to someone so in 20 years will have to deal when the kid comes looking for her full of hostitilty and emotional baggage.

Amy, I believe that the taking of an innocent human life is murder, and that's why I call abortion "murder". And no, I'm no science major, but I do know that many biologists and docotors feel that life begins at conception. In fact, did you know that the vast intenational consensus of embryologists believe that human life does indeed begin at fertilization?

Have you ever taken a good look at a fetal development timeline?
Here, I'll paste just the first 4 months, so you can see how quickly the baby develops.

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of
blood through the body every day.

Week 15: The baby has an adult’s taste buds.

Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will be one half of its birth weight.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i believe the fetus is alive in the sense that trees, cells and plants are alive. They are not a sentient being.

Again, go take a good look at a fetal development chart.

But im not arguing about whether ppl believe a baby is alive or not, im arguing that calling it murder is wrong. AND my main point is that laws shouldnt be passed on relgious beliefs.

So, if the fetus is alive, it's not murder to kill it? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Rono]

So live start at week 5

 

[80sU2isBest]

So live start at week 5

Not according to embryologosts, who say that life begins at fertilization.

Other than that, you don't think the heart beating at day 22 is a sign of human life?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Ok, this isn't so much a reply to anyone's comments as just a random question, so anyone who reads this should feel free to respond.

1. When does life begin? Conception? Birth? At some point in between?

2. If you believe life begins at conception, does this automatically mean abortion is wrong since it involves taking a life? Or are there some instances in which taking life is justified?

3. If you believe life begins at birth, does this mean abortion should be legal up until a baby is born?

4. If you believe life begins at some point between conception and birth, at what point is this? How do you define it? What proof do you have? Does it depend on the number of weeks gestation at which a premature baby can survive, and if so does that mean that the definition of when life begins changes if a baby is born at fewer weeks gestation and survives?

 

[martha]

So motorcyclists should be forced to wear hemets because:

1. The insurance industy wants it? Great, let's let the insurance industry govern all our choices; that'll work. It worked great when birth control itself wasn't covered by insurance.

2. Heroin and drunk driving are illegal, so why shouldn't riding without a helmet be illegal too? That's the best you can give me?

3. Prescription drugs and motorcycle helmet laws. Yeah, they're the same thing.

As usual, no one here can give me any legit reasons for helmet laws.

But 80s has dug out his "fetal life" chart that he gets from an anti-choice website, so I think this thread is over.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

As usual, no one here can give me any legit reasons for helmet laws.

The government requires citizens to take other safety precautions, I don't see why requiring motorcyclists to wear a helmet is any different. And you didn't address any of the points I raised before so please don't say nobody has provided legitimate reasons when you haven't even addressed the ones I gave.

But 80s has dug out his "fetal life" chart that he gets from an anti-choice website, so I think this thread is over.

I probably disagree with 80s just as much as you do, but I don't see why him citing material from an anti-choice website is any less legitimate than those of us who are pro-choice citing material from a pro-choice website. If you feel the material is inaccurate then dispute it but if it is accurate then its source shouldn't make a difference in this case.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But 80s has dug out his "fetal life" chart that he gets from an anti-choice website, so I think this thread is over. [/QUOTE
Martha, go look at any fetal development timeline, and you will see the same thing.

Can you accuse the following sites of being biased toward the prolife movement?

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ninemonths_2.htm
http://babies.sutterhealth.org/babygrowth/fetaldev/bg_fetaldev-1.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
http://www.americanbaby.com/ab/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ab/story/data/9177.xml
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/prenataldevelopment.shtml

There are many many more just like those. So, if you want to say that those timelines are inaccurate, you go right on ahead. But the experrts disagree with you.

 

[Angela Harlem]

As usual, no one here can give me any legit reasons for helmet laws.

They lessen fatality or severe injury rates. If my memory serves me correctly, you once disagreed with this or something along the lines of, so this is just another FYM impasse. I hope I haven't remembered something else and misrepresented anything you said in a thread from moons ago, re: safety.

 

[Rono]

Not according to embryologosts, who say that life begins at fertilization.

Other than that, you don't think the heart beating at day 22 is a sign of human life?

No not for human life, just the start of something breathing, no brian activety apearantly.

 

[BVS]

No not for human life, just the start of something breathing, no brian activety apearantly.

Not even breathing.

 

[xtal]

WTF?

A man should not even have a say in what is right and what isn't when it comes to issues of abortion.

When you can squeeze an eight pound baby out of you, then maybe you deserve to voice up.
But in here, you don't.

The women have the power here. And they should damn well keep the power.

 

[A_Wanderer]

WTF?

A man should not even have a say in what is right and what isn't when it comes to issues of abortion.

When you can squeeze an eight pound baby out of you, then maybe you deserve to voice up.
But in here, you don't.

The women have the power here. And they should damn well keep the power.

Why the fuck shouldn't men have the right to discuss issues of human life and ethics of taking a potential life? The rights of the individual versus the rights or lack therof for a foetus.

 

[MadelynIris]

We'll anyway...

I'd be interested to know how many people voted for Bush, only on his stance with abortion. Larger than you think....

And I assume the Democrats realize this, finally.

 

[Irvine511]

We'll anyway...

I'd be interested to know how many people voted for Bush, only on his stance with abortion. Larger than you think....

And I assume the Democrats realize this, finally.

this is absolutely true.

it amazes me that people vote against their own economic self-interests and further perpetuate an oligarcy that is predicated upon the creation of a permanent underclass (made up, largely, of them) solely because of the pro-life/anti-choice issue.

but people do a lot of amazing things.

 

[MadelynIris]

it amazes me that people vote against their own economic self-interests and further perpetuate an oligarcy that is predicated upon the creation of a permanent underclass (made up, largely, of them) solely because of the pro-life/anti-choice issue.

But I'd say it's time to understand why....

 

[80sU2isBest]

this is absolutely true.

it amazes me that people vote against their own economic self-interests and further perpetuate an oligarcy that is predicated upon the creation of a permanent underclass (made up, largely, of them) solely because of the pro-life/anti-choice issue.

but people do a lot of amazing things.

I didn't vote against my own economic self-interest nor to further an oligarcy blah blah when I cast my vote for Bush, Irvine.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But I'd say it's time to understand why....

If I had, maybe it would have been because human life is more important than economics.

 

[pax]

It's a wee bit self-righteous to claim that only a vote for an anti-abortion-rights candidate is a vote for "human life," particularly when that same anti-abortion-rights candidate is also pro-death penalty, anti-desperately-needed-environmental-regulations, anti-living-wage, pro-war...

There are other, equally important ways to vote for life concerns besides voting against abortion rights.

And I'm really quite insulted, frankly, at your implication that pro-abortion-rights voters are unconcerned with the preservation of the dignity of human life.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It's a wee bit self-righteous to claim that only a vote for an anti-abortion-rights candidate is a vote for "human life,"

Where did I claim that?

And I'm really quite insulted, frankly, at your implication that pro-abortion-rights voters are unconcerned with the preservation of the dignity of human life.

Where did I imply that?

Have you put on your glasses yet this morning?

 

[pax]

Nice, 80s. Way to get personal with me. I expected better from you.

I got that from your previous post saying that your vote for "human life" (or anyone's, I guess) is more important than a vote based on "economics," when votes for those so-called "economic interests" are often based in concern for quality and dignity of human life as well.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Nice, 80s. Way to get personal with me. I expected better from you.

I got that from your previous post saying that your vote for "human life" (or anyone's, I guess) is more important than a vote based on "economics," when votes for those so-called "economic interests" are often based in concern for quality and dignity of human life as well.

I didn't get personal with you. It was a joke, but it wasn't an insult. I was curious how you could see things that just weren't there. If anything, I should be insulted. You did, after all, call me "self-righteous" and attributed things to me that I didn't say.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

this is absolutely true.

it amazes me that people vote against their own economic self-interests and further perpetuate an oligarcy that is predicated upon the creation of a permanent underclass (made up, largely, of them) solely because of the pro-life/anti-choice issue.

but people do a lot of amazing things.

Ohio anyone?