Another abortion article...

[shortguy]

I was not trying to rationalize a pre-existing belief against birth control pills. I had no objection to birth control pills before I heard this information, and frankly, I don't have much of an objection now that I learned it is pretty much false.

How is the birth control pill qualitatively different from abortion? Intuitively I feel that it is an acceptable measure, but I haven't yet been able to acceptably distinguish it from abortion, at least if it were to cause a zygote to implant.

 

[Gothmog]

Keirador wrote:

What if the pregnant woman draws that line as she's going into labor?I was speaking in terms of scientific classification. Do you really think that, objectively, any one event is more portentous in the process from haploid to newborn than conception? One moment, the woman is not pregnant, the next, she is. Past that point, everything is just development.

You choose fertilization, others consciousness, still others survival outside the womb.
Actually, I think 'being inhabited by a soul' would be the majority answer throughout human history.
I know it would be mine.

In the face of this uncertainty, and the inability of science to provide an objective measure, I would give the choice to the woman. If a pregnant woman draws that line in labor, then that is the abuse I reference with my quote of Lord Hailsham.

That's my opinion but the final decision is between a woman, her doctor, her loved ones, and her God.
It should not involve you, or some moralizing legislators.

cgannon wrote:

Well once you get into the definition of a "human person", the debate ceases to be scientific. The very idea of "consciousness", as far as I can see, is a highly unscientific debate.

Thank you for understanding my point. This is why Keirador's appeal to authority was a fallacy, and as we can see from the definitions posted in this thread, also a lie. A zygote is not a person.

I realize that the potentiality argument is a little sketchy, but I think it is at least a little valid and worth bringing up

Agreed, it is worth bringing up. Like free will it makes for an interesting discussion but it proves nothing. In my mind it is a red herring, though I understand that not everyone agrees. It is one of the issues that makes this debate so personal. I was trying to preempt a long debate on that topic.

Your following digression is interesting, and again breaches the 'free will' question. I will mention that your term 'specific human' is quite vague. You seem to agree that you prevent a specific human from existing with many of your choices pre fertilization, what about maternal hormone levels? or drug use? or as I already mentioned exercise? Will these change the specific human? They do change gene expression, and certainly the character of the resulting organism.

I was not trying to rationalize a pre-existing belief against birth control pills. I had no objection to birth control pills before I heard this information, and frankly, I don't have much of an objection now that I learned it is pretty much false.

But you might have had an objection while you thought the information was true, yes? Certainly some people would have raised an objection in that case (Keirador comes to mind, though maybe not FL2).

That was my point, whoever gave you that disingenuous piece of information was trying to rationalize a pre-existing belief and hoping others would follow suite. If you look back you will see that I never specifically accuse you of trying to do so, I just suggest the origin of the deliberate misinformation and why someone would want to spread it. It does make me angry.

FL2 wrote:

They differ from me no more significantly than does a black man, an elderly woman, or an Asian baby. To imply anything else is to be guilty of dehumanizing for the purpose of pushing an extermination agenda against the unborn for your own personal gain.

Are you a single cell organism FL2? How do you type?
This is another classic example of a disingenuous argument. You try to claim the moral high ground without anything to stand on.

But the bottom line is you seem to agree with Keirador that a human is defined solely by its DNA? So you don't believe in an eternal soul? Or you believe it inhabits the Zygote at the moment of its formation?

Accept that other's believe differently (perhaps the soul inhabits at implantation? or at a specific number of cells? or at the formation of a functional nervous system? Take your pick cause I have no idea), and that they are not (all) guilty of what you charge.


Edit: I wanted to add this but I had to find the quote...
Keirador wrote:

I believe that all humans have inalienable rights, one of those rights being a right to life, a right which supercedes a right to privacy or a right to not be uncomfortable.

Agreed. The most basic human right is the right to own ones own body, the right to physical and moral integrity. Any other human right springs from there.

 

[Keirador]

Keirador wrote:

You choose fertilization, others consciousness, still others survival outside the womb.
Actually, I think 'being inhabited by a soul' would be the majority answer throughout human history.
I know it would be mine.

In the face of this uncertainty, and the inability of science to provide an objective measure, I would give the choice to the woman. If a pregnant woman draws that line in labor, then that is the abuse I reference with my quote of Lord Hailsham.

That's my opinion but the final decision is between a woman, her doctor, her loved ones, and her God.
It should not involve you, or some moralizing legislators.

But can you not also appreciate that if my honest belief (which you've agreed is as valid as any, but not necessarily more valid) is that humanity begins with conception, and that abortion is the killing of a defenseless person, I am morally obligated to try to stop this from continuing, even at the expense of the comfort of the mother? More on this topic later.

Thank you for understanding my point. This is why Keirador's appeal to authority was a fallacy, and as we can see from the definitions posted in this thread, also a lie. A zygote is not a person.

That's going a bit far, I believe. I was defining a human differently than you are, I recognize that the developing organism is a member of the human species biologically, and consider it therefore a human. This is scientifically correct. Whether it is a human in the same sense as you or I, with sentience, a soul, or personal rights, is all that is really up for debate. My appeal to authority was that the developing organism is NOT a an intrinsic part of the mother's body, but a separate body belonging to a different organism, that organism being a member of homo sapiens . That is true. You may disagree with my understanding that this separate organism can be nothing else but a person, but to call me a liar? I was stating that which I believe to be true, and what I have understood to be true using the best of my ability and the resources I have at my command. At absolute worst, I am mistaken. I have not purposefully misled anyone, nor have I stated anything which I know to be false. I am not a liar.

The most basic human right is the right to own ones own body, the right to physical and moral integrity. Any other human right springs from there.

I said the right to life supersedes all other rights, and you say you agree with me, but then say the right to physical and moral integrity is the most important right. The two are not interchangeable.

I consider the developing being inside the mother's womb to be a person. You have attacked this view as not more valid than any other view, but you also seem to tacitly admit that it is not less valid, either. With the true conviction that unborn children deserve the same rights of other humans, can you not appreciate my obligation to defend their most basic right, their right to life, especially when they cannot do so for themselves? I can appreciate those who honestly believe they are defending women's rights to their own bodies, for those who consider the unborn to be non-entities. I do not consider them evil, merely wrong.
This is because there is greater evil to be done if I am wrong than if they are wrong. If I get my way and I am wrong, millions of women will lose rights to their own bodies, go through severe pain and a trying ordeal, and will suffer a social stigma, all for no reason. Some will have their lives ruined. Tragic? Of course. If the abortionists have their way and they are wrong, millions of people are systematically murdered, for no crime of their own, and for no greater reason than that they were inconvenient to the person who would rather take a life than pay for their own mistake (in 98% of cases). I believe this to be considerably worse.

 

[brennan]

Actually, I think 'being inhabited by a soul' would be the majority answer throughout human history.
I know it would be mine.

Show me a soul and this might mean something.

 

[cgannon64]

Your following digression is interesting, and again breaches the 'free will' question. I will mention that your term 'specific human' is quite vague. You seem to agree that you prevent a specific human from existing with many of your choices pre fertilization, what about maternal hormone levels? or drug use? or as I already mentioned exercise? Will these change the specific human? They do change gene expression, and certainly the character of the resulting organism.

Yes, I suppose these will change the human that comes into existence - but they are not done consciously for that effect, which I think is what makes them different from an abortion. As I said, an abortion is an action preventing a specific human from coming into existence. Using a condom is an action willing much more generally that a human not come into existence. Using drugs or exercising is an action that does not necessarily prevent a human coming into existence, but it does change the shape this human will take - but this is done so unconsciously, and is not a motivating factor.

(About the 'specific human'. What I mean by that is that the action prevents, let's say, you from being born, in the specific conditions that have made you - the genes in the specific sperm and egg that made you, and so on. I'm getting very abstract here, I know, but aborting a fetus is preventing a specific human from being born after the circumstances that created him are in the past - instead of preventing that specific sperm from reaching the egg, I am allowing it to do so, and then stopping it. I'm having a little trouble explaining the difference, but I hope you can see it.)

That was my point, whoever gave you that disingenuous piece of information was trying to rationalize a pre-existing belief and hoping others would follow suite. If you look back you will see that I never specifically accuse you of trying to do so, I just suggest the origin of the deliberate misinformation and why someone would want to spread it. It does make me angry.

I don't think the person who told me this was trying to convert me, I think they were just misinformed. They, being of similar opinions as myself, probably jumped on the information when they heard it, and spread it around eagerly, because it seemed like an outrageously important fact to spread - imagine how terrible it would be if true. Millions of abortions being performed unknowingly, by people who do not even support abortion!

I think it would be a bad thing to spread, of course, if the person spreading it knew it was false - but I doubt my source knew that.

 

[blackheart]

And there's a basic difference between religious thought and secular thought. Religious folk can appeal to a higher authority than the mass of man. Personally, I don't believe that slavery was morally correct. Apparently, some would argue that at a time when the majority was in favor of slavery, it was appropriate.

Funny thing is back then the religious authorities also determined slavery to be appropriate. The Bible also includes slaves doesn't it?

And that is wrong. What is morally correct is determined by God and God alone, and never changes.

That's your own opinion, not mine.

Love thy God with all thy heart.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.

If everyone did just these two things, we'd all be happy. But many of us don't, so only the greediest and strongest think they are.

If you hate yourself and loved your neighbor as much as you loved yourself....? Love, unfortunately, doesn't make the world work.

 

[Keirador]

Funny thing is back then the religious authorities also determined slavery to be appropriate.

Uhh. . . no. Religious groups were among the first abolitionists.

The Bible also includes slaves doesn't it?

The Old Testament, perhaps.

This is quite off-topic. My point is that religious believers can appeal to a higher authority than the will of the majority, whereas in most secular ideaologies it appears that whatever most people think is correct, is in fact correct, or so a few posters have claimed.

 

[blackheart]

Uhh. . . no. Religious groups were among the first abolitionists.

This is quite off-topic. My point is that religious believers can appeal to a higher authority than the will of the majority, whereas in most secular ideaologies it appears that whatever most people think is correct, is in fact correct, or so a few posters have claimed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Abrahamic_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_slavery

While religious groups were abolitionists, many for a long period of time condoned slavery.

Secularists don't appeal to the morals of the masses (at least not the majority). This would imply they don't have intrinsic morals, which is flatout false. Religious believers can appeal to a higher authority all they want, it's how they would interpret any given answer that matters.

 

[Gothmog]

Keirador wrote:

But can you not also appreciate that if my honest belief (which you've agreed is as valid as any, but not necessarily more valid) is that humanity begins with conception, and that abortion is the killing of a defenseless person, I am morally obligated to try to stop this from continuing, even at the expense of the comfort of the mother?

Yes, I can appreciate that. Mark1031 had a thread about it recently

In that thread I wrote something like: I know that if an equivalent number of Jews (my ethnic background) were being systematically murdered in the US I would consider that a call to violence or even to open revolt.

So, in effect, I would argue that you are morally obligated to try and stop it from continuing even at the expense of your own comfort. Do you really believe your own rhetoric?

I'm also wondering how you deal with the self defense issue. That is, the fetus is indisputably a threat to the life of the mother. What level of threat does the fetus have to pose to the mother before you allow her to kill it as a measure of self defense?

This is the type of dilemma that occurs once you start down the path of physically forcing a woman to sacrifice her body for 9 month at the will of the state. Not to mention the resulting child and who will care for it when the mother will not, again the state?

How much must the state contribute monetarily to ensure the zygotes continued existence? How much intervention?

II may have gone a bit too far, but I feel that the way you were flaunting this argument as a 'scientific fact' in the beginning of this thread was reprehensible. You never addressed the finer points that you now list: sentience, a soul, human rights, etc. You never mentioned that you were only responding in the context of the embryo not being an intrinsic part of the mother. So you may understand why I felt the way I did, context is everything.

I said the right to life supersedes all other rights, and you say you agree with me, but then say the right to physical and moral integrity is the most important right. The two are not interchangeable.

IMO the right to life is the right to physical integrity. If you do not own you body what rights can you have? IMO you cannot, for example, impregnate a woman against her will (say in-vitro) and then force her to birth the child, even if there is a right to life. Also, the self-defence issue I mention above comes into play - competing rights.

This is because there is greater evil to be done if I am wrong than if they are wrong.

I disagree.

If I get my way and I am wrong, millions of women will lose rights to their own bodies, go through severe pain and a trying ordeal, and will suffer a social stigma, all for no reason. Some will have their lives ruined. Tragic? Of course.

you leave out the effect on the child and the cost to society both monetarily and in terms of allowing such human slavery (the mother losing rights to her own body). FredLC has posted quite eloquently on this topic a number of times. Most recently in your other abortion thread.

If the abortionists have their way and they are wrong, millions of people are systematically murdered, for no crime of their own, and for no greater reason than that they were inconvenient to the person who would rather take a life than pay for their own mistake (in 98% of cases). I believe this to be considerably worse.

Well, let's examine this for a moment.

First I have to imagine that you believe in some absolute scale of Justice, otherwise we would be discussing only the impact on society; and murder primarily effects the loved ones of the murdered along with overall social stability.

You are arguing that there is an intrinsic value to an unborn, even non-sentient, blob of undifferentiated human cells (or even single cell) that may become human someday (as noted only 50% of implanted zygotes go to term and even less of fertilized eggs). A value essentially equal to that of the mother.

What is the basis for this value?

Does it involve a biblical style God?

Does it involve an eternal soul?

Does it involve an afterlife?

I'll need some qualification of the above before I can continue (including the self defense issue).

 

[Keirador]

As far as the self-defense issue, killing in self-defense has strong legal basis, even if the person killed in self-defense was not actively trying to cause harm. I believe medical science is advanced enough to reliably determine threat levels. This is obviously a grey area.

I argue that there is an intrinsic value to human life. I personally believe that the "blobs" you speak of are as human as their mother, a belief neither of us seems able to completely validate or invalidate. The basis for the assertion that all human life has value is of course rooted in my belief in God, but is not limited to religion. The belief that human life has value is, I believe, at the root of all enlightened societies. It need not involve God or the eternal soul or the afterlife (I believe it does, but it need not). If we do not accept the axiom that human life has value, the rest of our ideaology collapses. Why would it be important to preserve the rights of something that is valueless? Why would respect or caring for other human beings be at all desirable? Why should the mothers who request abortion have their lives made better, if their lives mean nothing?
Or is it simply that some lives are worth more than others? I know the "slippery slope" argument is old, but I don't think it is any more valid than it is here. I won't expand on this point, because I hope that everyone rational can agree that humans deciding which lives have value is a horrifying prospect. . . right?

 

[Gothmog]

Self-defense: So it's a gray area. Grey enough to make legal abortion a necessity?

Is only a threat to the mothers life viable, or is a threat to her livelihood enough?

What level of societal intervention do you advocate?

I need more about your opinion on an eternal soul and an afterlife to comment further. We are now trying to balance competing rights. I did already agree about the intrinsic value of human life.

I'm out of here now, but I'll be back.

 

[Keirador]

Legal abortion could only be a necessity in a case where the mother's life is forfeit if she carries the baby to term. Only the right to life can trump the right to life, though this is only in a legal sense. Morally, I think it would be proper for the mother to give her life for her child, but that is a personal belief and not something I would wish super-imposed on society.
Livelihood is not enough.
What do you mean by societal intervention? Legal, private, or both?
Why are my opinions on the eternal soul and the afterlife relevant? These are religious subjects, and should be irrelevant before the law. (At any rate, I'm a reformist Catholic.)

 

[wit>trope]

What is inconsistent in the pro-choice view is that

1. Death is defined in all 50 states as the cessation of heart and/or brain activity.

2. Thus it would seem that the presence of heart and/or brain activity would mean that he or she is alive.

3. The unborn child has heart AND brain activity at a VERY EARLY stage and as technology advances the stage at which it is possible to detect this becomes EARLIER and EARLIER.

4. Yet pro-choices support legal killing of unborn children who are already past this stage where there is heart and brain activity -- which again occurs VERY EARLY, earlier than you may think and is becoming more and more detected early as technology for detection advances.

 

[Gothmog]

Keirador wrote:

Legal abortion could only be a necessity in a case where the mother's life is forfeit if she carries the baby to term.

Care to change your vote in the "Your views on abortion?" thread? Or are you saying that only people rich enough to fly to another country should be allowed this "necessity"?

Only the right to life can trump the right to life, though this is only in a legal sense. Morally, I think it would be proper for the mother to give her life for her child, but that is a personal belief and not something I would wish super-imposed on society.

Ah, but what are the relevant thresholds? There is a statistical pattern to how likely a pregnancy is to go term, and another to how likely a pregnant woman is to die. Early in pregnancy the fraction that go to term is low, and the chance of death to the mother at some point higher. As the pregnancy progresses the fraction that go to term increases, and typically some causes of death are ruled out and that likelihood decreases. Where does the relevant threshold lie? What fractional probability of the potential person becoming a real person, vs. the probability of the woman losing her life is enough for her to claim self defense? Should it be 75%? 50%? 25%? less? more?

Why do you think you are qualified to make that judgement for everyone? Isn't it a personal decision? As you say you think it would be proper for the mother to give her life (though you will never be faced with this choice), you also allow that you would not enforce your personal preference.

As I said in the other thread, I would have an abortion if my wife's life was threatened. I would want to be able to make the call about what level of likelihood in consult with my wife, doctor, and God. I would not desire your opinion, nor that of legislators.

Livelihood is not enough.

Are you saying that people do not have a right to protect their property, or means of livelihood, through deadly force if necessary?

What do you mean by societal intervention? Legal, private, or both?

I'm not sure what you mean by private societal intervention. I think 'how much intervention by society' is pretty clear. What steps should society take to prevent a woman from ending her pregnancy. It is not hard to do, a few raw lima beans can even do the trick. Should the state pay for any medical procedures necessary to remove the embryo from the woman as early as possible? Does the woman have a right of compensation to lost wages, or job opportunities, due to impairment during pregnancy? Obviously the state would be liable for care of the resulting child. How would that work?

Why are my opinions on the eternal soul and the afterlife relevant? These are religious subjects, and should be irrelevant before the law. (At any rate, I'm a reformist Catholic.)

They relate to the question of intrinsic worth, and why society should prosecute murderers. Is the intrinsic worth related to human relationships, and the necessity to ensure a stable society? Or is the objective value imposed by God and related to the eternal soul. In the first case the value of the person might outweigh the value of the potential person, in the second they would be equal. This would weigh into the self defense / livelihood probability question outlined above.

If it is the eternal soul that defines the worth then there must be a legal precedent for when the soul enters the body. This seems to me a religious question and inherently problematic to define. I believe Roman catholics believe that the soul enters upon conception, so I understand why you choose that as your legal precedent. But it seems you would deny other religions their own beliefs.

If it is not the eternal soul then things like the morning after pill would be fine, and indeed the whole question would be settled by the people directly involved in the life. They would define the worth and be fully capable of deciding the outcome. They would be the final judge of the competing rights.

But I have another question in this context.

If the eternal soul enters at fertilization, and the overwhelming majority of fertilization's don't go to term, then what happens to those souls? This is important again in deciding how to weigh the competing rights of the unborn with the born. Do they go on to inhabit another zygote? That seems like reincarnation to me. Do they go to heaven? hell? Is their destination different if they are not allowed to implant? What about if they are aborted later in their development?

If they go to heaven anyway, isn't is actually more of a risk to the individual to be born and risk eternal damnation?

The answer seems very important in terms of creating a legal precedent to judge the competing rights upon. If no legal precedent can be reached, shouldn't we allow people to judge by their own belief systems?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

FL2 wrote:,snip> Are you a single cell organism FL2? How do you type?

So a quadrapalegic who types with a wand is not human? Babies can type nothing but gibberish, are they human? What about African bushmen? They can't type either? Do we round them up for termination too?

But the bottom line is you seem to agree with Keirador that a human is defined solely by its DNA?

Not entirely. I believe any discrete organism with human DNA is human, but that portions like severed limbs or tissue samples are not, although they should be treated with the same respect human remains should be.

So you don't believe in an eternal soul? Or you believe it inhabits the Zygote at the moment of its formation?

Show me where in the Bible it says we have an immortal soul. All I know about the Bible's treatment of the unborn is that Job claimed God saw him 'as an embreyo', and that there were punishments in the Levite code regarding the intentional killing of an unborn child. You want to talk souls, look up someone that believes in that sort of hocus-pocus. According to the Bible, man IS a soul, just like an animal.

Accept that other's believe differently (perhaps the soul inhabits at implantation? or at a specific number of cells? or at the formation of a functional nervous system? Take your pick cause I have no idea), and that they are not (all) guilty of what you charge.

Given that no one has ever seen an animating spirit, and that we have no scientific data on its properties, who's to say it can't attach to a zygote?

Edit: I wanted to add this but I had to find the quote...
Keirador wrote: Agreed. The most basic human right is the right to own ones own body, the right to physical and moral integrity. Any other human right springs from there.

Your rights end where someone else's begin. Since we don't know for a fact whether a zygote is human or not, I once again declare strenuously that the only moral course is to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND ASSUME IT IS. When you don't know, you assume the most cautious choice, that is why I oppose the Death Penalty as it is practiced in human justice systems, because certainty is not required for capital convictions.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm also wondering how you deal with the self defense issue. That is, the fetus is indisputably a threat to the life of the mother.

Only when both are subjected to 3rd world medicine.

What level of threat does the fetus have to pose to the mother before you allow her to kill it as a measure of self defense?

Any pregnancy (tubal, etc...) that directly threatens the mother's health to the point that her and the child surviving to term is less than 50% should be considered a viable threat, and she should have the option to abort. Likewise, any expectant mother who is diagnosed with a potentially terminal medical condition that only treatments which will kill the fetus can treat can invoke self-defense. In cases of choosing the mother over the child, it is far more logical to choose the mother. The exception to this rule would be a mother with worse chances of survival, even with treatment, than the child, or a mother on Death Row for some capital offense who will die anyway (not that I support the DP, just covering all bases).

This is the type of dilemma that occurs once you start down the path of physically forcing a woman to sacrifice her body for 9 month at the will of the state.

Um, I've always given tepid support to the idea of aloowing rape victims to abort after counselling. Other than rape, how can a woman be forced to become pregnant? Are you talking about voluntary intercourse where contraception fails? Where's the force? If the male forced her legs apart, that's rape, see above. You have a peculiar definiton of 'force'...

Not to mention the resulting child and who will care for it when the mother will not, again the state?

Well, dun daddy's wages too. But yeah, I'll accept the tax hike.

How much must the state contribute monetarily to ensure the zygotes continued existence?

Everything the mom and dad don't.

How much intervention?

All the way to holding the mom prisoner through the term, and shackling her to prevent her harming the infant, and slapping the crap out of dad until he finds his checkbook.

Sounds draconian you say? People will not feel as free to rut like animals you say? Hmm, is that some of that deterrence stuff? Sounds good to me!

 

[Gothmog]

FL2 wrote:

So a quadrapalegic who types with a wand is not human? Babies can type nothing but gibberish, are they human? What about African bushmen?

Obviously the distinction I was making was between a single cell and a person.

Remember the comment you made?

They differ from me no more significantly than does a black man, an elderly woman, or an Asian baby.

In my mind the difference between a single celled organism and a multi-celled one is more significant.
Not to mention the difference between a zygote and a person.

The typing comment was meant to be ironic. Sorry for any confusion there.

Show me where in the Bible it says we have an immortal soul.

Hey, I was just asking. I don't know what you believe.

All I know about the Bible's treatment of the unborn is that Job claimed God saw him 'as an embreyo', and that there were punishments in the Levite code regarding the intentional killing of an unborn child.

Of course interpretations of the Levite code also imply that the killing of an unborn child in the case of threat to the mother is perfectly justified. Not that I agree, I don't base my belief system on the bible as inerrant.

Who's to say it can't attach to a zygote?

Not me, I have no idea. I was trying to get at that point to wonder what happens to all that animating spirit that never even manages to attach to the uterus.

Your rights end where someone else's begin.

No. In that case you may have competing rights.

You, as Keirador, have brought up erring on the side of caution.

This makes the implicit assumption that something bad happens to aborted zygotes... doesn't it?

I mean otherwise, what's the big deal? The zygote goes to heaven (or wherever you feel the dead end up, again I don't know your beliefs). Is that so bad? So much worse than living on earth for a brief spell (vanishingly small as you call it) and then possibly burning in hell (or whatever you believe happens to the unsaved)?

I wonder why would God punish all those zygotes that it has chosen not to allow to implant? I don't claim to understand God, but equally I don't think anyone does. Personally I refuse to worship a spiteful God.

Only when both are subjected to 3rd world medicine.

No, any fetus is a threat. Just last week a good friend of my wife's died to to complications in labor. She was young and healthy, her pregnancy was proceeding well, and she had good medical care (she lived in Australia).

You choose 50%, and make the implicit assumption that the zygote (or other embryonic state) is of equal worth to the mother. I can respect that opinion, I even agree on some level.

But again, I don't need you to help me decide thing that effect the lives of my family. Stay the hell out of it, and take your government with you.

The force is involved in not allowing her to abort according to her own belief system. As I've said before abortion is easy, especially early on in pregnancy. The force is in not allowing her to make a decision about her own body, it's about you imposing you belief system on others and making it stick.

Specifically, this is the force in your own words:

All the way to holding the mom prisoner through the term, and shackling her to prevent her harming the infant, and slapping the crap out of dad until he finds his checkbook.

and this is the specific reference to slavery that I already made and the slippery slope it involves. I don't trust a government with that sort of power.

I must say, what you outline above falls well into my definition of force.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Since this debate is littered with irrationality and the nonsense of the sexually deprived teenagers who have infinite knowledge of how and why raped thirteen years olds should be forced to have their abusers child, there is subsequently little I can offer to further the pro-abortionist agenda.

However, I would like to acknowledge the anti-abortionist view that every human atrocity has a direct connection to abortion. I would also hate to intrude on their religious "shove-throat" campaign currently taking place on these forums. I forgot that aside from spending several hours of their life posting on these forums each day, that their side job is crusading door to door as vehemently as they do in this thread about abortion.

For America's sake, perhaps destined to forever remain socially underdeveloped compared to the rest of the world, the vast majority of anti-abortionists on these forums are not legal age to vote.

 

[cgannon64]

Since this debate is littered with irrationality and the nonsense of the sexually deprived teenagers who have infinite knowledge of how and why raped thirteen years olds should be forced to have their abusers child, there is subsequently little I can offer to further the pro-abortionist agenda.

Why, it's so easy to win debates when you misrepresent your opponent's position, isn't it?

 

[brennan]

It may be a distortion, but it is a logical result of your opinion, do you find the consequences of your moral fervour distasteful?