^ Happens to be MY body, my health, and my life. henceforth, my decision.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 12:01:11 PM

Not your body, health, or life.. It's an unborn child's body, health, and life. You aren't an unborn child, are you? If so, then how are you typing on the wolf web, since your fingers have not fully developed yet?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 12:04:05 PM

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:10-12


Abominiation here comes from the Hebrew word that basically means unkosher, but is translated as abomination for some reason. Plenty of anti-gay people run around with shit from Leviticus on poster boards, decrying it as an abomination.

I'm just saying I hope they don't like bacon.

3/7/2006 12:04:20 PM

And what is the relevance of that?

3/7/2006 12:05:00 PM

Quote :

"spookyjon find me the verse where it calls shellfish an abomination. "

I was responding to this.

3/7/2006 12:05:39 PM

^^ Last I checked unborn children grow in a mother's womb.

unless we've gone to test tube growing already.

So it is my body, that gets affected.
My health, that is also at risk.
And my life, that is forever altered.



[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:07 PM. Reason : fuckin spelling]

3/7/2006 12:06:30 PM

^^ Yes, I can plainly see that. What I want to know is the relevance of that to the point you were trying to make.

^ Very well. So.. it is not a question of it being SOLELY your body, your this, your that, you you you you you... it is, in the light most favorable to you, a question of BOTH your body your this your that selfish little me me me me me, AND the unborn child's body, life, etc.

Even so, killing an unborn child is greatly affecting that child's life, yes? The child bears the majority of the hardship here. Is this not a fair statement?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:08 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 12:07:01 PM

I didn't read the thread, because it's probably a gigantic cripple-fight and a total waste of time.

However, I read the first post -- and I think this is a good assertion of states' rights. Don't like the abortion laws in your state? Go over the border to abort. This belongs out of the federal scope, unless there's a constitutional amendment.

3/7/2006 12:10:16 PM

That's great, except for when they outlaw going over the border to abort.

3/7/2006 12:11:13 PM

I agree with mike.

If abortion advocates really want to win this fight, they'd actually sit back and do nothing.

3/7/2006 12:11:25 PM

Well that would be one approach: Thing of it is, the federal government can control instrumentalities of interstate travel. So the federal government could constitutionally pass a law that says "Going outside of your home state for the purpose of evading your home state's abortion laws is a federal crime".

3/7/2006 12:12:06 PM

I said this belongs out of the federal scope. So, what the federal government MIGHT do is really not relevent to my argument. They should stay out of it. It's a state issue.

Quote :

"That's great, except for when they outlaw going over the border to abort."

Can states outlaw what you do in other states? Isn't that outside of their jurisdiction? If it isn't, what stops people from moving to where the laws better fit them?

3/7/2006 12:16:07 PM

I wrote a news article about this for Americana. It might give you more information if you don't want to read the actual task force report and law, and see what they're thinking: http://americana.ncsu.edu/content/?p=116

3/7/2006 12:21:35 PM

You're right, I don't think states can (reasonably) do that. Wolfpack2K probably knows better than I.

There was a law that passed the house, I don't think it's hit the senate yet, called the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. "To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes."

Which, as I understand it, would basically make illegal the movement across state lines of a minor to avoid parental notificiation and whatnot.

3/7/2006 12:22:45 PM

Quote :

"Almost 2000 women submitted details about their experiences, and the impact abortion had on their lives. Over 99% of the women testified that abortion is destructive of the “rights, interests and health of women.""

How's that now?

3/7/2006 12:25:41 PM

Yeah, states will have a more difficult time, due to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The federal government has an easier time restricting interstate travel because it can control the means of that travel.

Actually I think the abortion advocates' best plan here would be to not challenge the law as such, but to keep their clinic in the most liberal part of the state (which is probably where it is already). Doctors who get arrested will have to go to trial in that county, and they could probably just rely on "jury nullification" (where the jury says "Yes, under the law this person is guilty, but we're going to find him not guilty because we think the law is bad") to get them acquitted.


^ Very easy. I'd recommend starting out by visiting http://www.feministsforlife.org Many women are subjected to domestic violence to coerce them into having abortion, many women are coerced anyway by a boyfriend unwilling to pay child support, and abortion can have not only severe physical consequences for the woman but also extreme emotional consequences. I know because I have good friends who have had abortions and still wake up crying about it.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:27 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 12:25:50 PM

^ ^^spooky, do you have a bill number or other reference so i can read that one?
I'm hoping it's meant only for the "avoiding parental notification" bit, not making it illegal period even with parental consent. *wants to read the bill first though*

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ^s]

3/7/2006 12:26:20 PM

^ I think it should affect whatever capacity for restricting abortion that the particular state has. I'm not sure, though.

p.s. Google it.

Quote :

"Many women are subjected to domestic violence to coerce them into having abortion, many women are coerced anyway by a boyfriend unwilling to pay child support, and abortion can have not only severe physical consequences for the woman but also extreme emotional consequences. I know because I have good friends who have had abortions and still wake up crying about it."

Plenty of women around the world are forced or coerced into marriage, but that doesn't mean marriage should be illegal.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:30 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/7/2006 12:29:12 PM

It's H.R. 748. It does only apply to transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of evading the parent's rights of notification and/or consent under state law. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109e4VuK1::


^ That was just an example. Read further on the website.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason : fix link]

3/7/2006 12:30:40 PM

Quote :

"Almost 2000 women submitted details about their experiences, and the impact abortion had on their lives. Over 99% of the women testified that abortion is destructive of the “rights, interests and health of women.""

Who even cares about this? Laws that "protect people from their own choices" should never exist. The fact that Republicans (REPUBLICANS) would lead the charge on laws with the justification of protecting somebody from herself -- this never ceases to depress and disgust me.

3/7/2006 12:32:13 PM

They are protecting the women from the abortion doctors who make money by selling abortions, and who tell women any number of foolish things in order to get them to buy one. "It's just a blob of tissue", "You'll forget all about it by noon", etc.

3/7/2006 12:33:48 PM

^ There are women though who want to have an abortion and dont regret it.
What are they being protected from?

And misinformation from doctors is illegal anyways yes?

3/7/2006 12:34:53 PM

^^^^ Yeah, there's another one floating around that is similar but is for parental permission instead of consent. And I honestly don't know how I feel about that, at least at a certain age. I mean, to me, if a 12 year old wants an abortion but her parents don't want it, tough shit for her. A 17 year old, though, is completely different.

And I don't need to read the web site. Do you think I don't know abortion can be emotionally devastating? Do you think I'm actually pro-abortion? That's ridiculous. I don't think abortion is a good thing, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It is a necessary option for people who, sadly, have clearly fucked up in the first place.

Quote :

"They are protecting the women from the abortion doctors who make money by selling abortions, and who tell women any number of foolish things in order to get them"

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:37 PM. Reason : for fuck's sake...]

3/7/2006 12:35:25 PM

So your issue is with marketing now? Don't we already have laws against false advertisement, especially in the case it causes harm? ^^^

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:36 PM. Reason : You guys are fast.]

3/7/2006 12:35:55 PM

Any good Republican would realize the market would accomodate for something like that. The market can do anything.

3/7/2006 12:38:27 PM

Yes I do think you are pro-abortion. Pro-abortion means that you want abortion to remain legal. It does NOT mean that you think abortion is great, everyone should have one. It simply means you want it to remain legal. Someone who is pro-death penalty is someone who wants the death penalty to remain legal. She does not think that everyone, including speeders, jaywalkers, and people who take the tags off their mattresses, should get it - just that it would remain legal.

Current laws relating to the abortion doctors' misrepresentations are tort laws, meaning that they can be sued, but not arrested. Now, there are law firms that do sue abortion doctors for misrepresentation - the insurance company usually settles out of court and it goes away.

Quote :

"It is a necessary option for people who, sadly, have clearly fucked up in the first place. "

The way I view it is this: If it is not a reason for killing a 2 year old born child, then it is not a reaosn for killing an UNborn child. Both of them are human beings, there is no real scientific difference between them. So can you point to some situation where it would be reasonable to say "I'm going to kill my two year old; it's sad, but it's necessary because I have clearly fucked up in the first place."

If the parent "clearly fucked up in the first place", why should the child have to pay the price?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:41 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 12:39:18 PM

The information about it for and against is also out there completely free for the reading and taking by anyone who wants to consider an abortion.

3/7/2006 12:39:35 PM

You're saying if a doctor cons me into taking a drug that kills me, it's not a criminal offense? Come on, man.

Oh, and

Quote :

"Yes I do think you are pro-abortion. Pro-abortion means that you want abortion to remain legal. It does NOT mean that you think abortion is great, everyone should have one. It simply means you want it to remain legal. Someone who is pro-death penalty is someone who wants the death penalty to remain legal. She does not think that everyone, including speeders, jaywalkers, and people who take the tags off their mattresses, should get it - just that it would remain legal."

Hey hey, do the semantics shuffle

3/7/2006 12:40:43 PM

Pro abortion implies that you think abortion is great etc. it's why folks prefer "Pro Choice" because the choice is what they're advocating. You, Wolfpack2k are intelligent enough to know the difference yes, but there are a lot of people who like to slant things.


It's why things aren't marketed as "anti abortion" but "pro life", for the other side.

And hey, if laws dictating criminal penalties for misrepresentations are what's needed, then I dont see too much of a problem with that.

3/7/2006 12:41:48 PM

^^^ That may well be, but how real is the potential for access? The Atlanta pro life groups have a saying, "11 abortion clinics in Atlanta, 0 in Alpharetta" (Alpharetta is an extraordinarily wealthy white suburb of Atlanta). The people who are targeted by the abortion industry might not have the practical ability to access the information.

^^ I don't think it is semantics, I think it is an issue of framing the whole discussion. To use the term pro-choice is silly, because it doesn't mean anything. Everyone is in favor of choosing things, even I have been known to choose things from time to time. But when it comes to "choosing" to kill an unborn child, it is a question of a vastly different character than choosing whether to drink sweet tea or Dr. Pepper at dinner.

^ No it doesn't. People who are pro death penalty don't think the death penalty is great, I don't think they have a wild drunken party every time someone gets the death penalty. But they think it should be legal - in other words, they think the jury should have the right to "choose" to impose the death penalty. So do we call them pro "choice", or pro death penalty?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 12:44:27 PM

I bet nobody in Alpharetta can drive to Atlanta.

3/7/2006 12:46:06 PM

^^ I lived in Alpharetta actually. There's no need for an abortion clinic there when there are 11 in Atlanta. and the information is availible also online, and almost every library has free internet access. Additionally there are numbers to call and they'll happily mail you info. you choose the source.

^^ And then should I say that you are "anti-choice"? It's the same semantics difference.



[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 12:46:43 PM

The point is that abortions are targeted to people who are of low income, generally low education, who are generally not privy to information as accessibly as others of better fortunes.

No, I am not anti choice. As I said, even I have been known to choose things on occasion. The whole issue is WHAT is the choice. Choosing between sweet tea or Dr Pepper? No problem, choose away. Choosing to take an innocent human life? That's a horse of a different color.

The crux of the issue is not choice, but the crux of the issue is the TOPIC of the choice. That topic is abortion. So I prefer to cut through the semantics about "choice" and get to what is the real topic. No one is against choosing things generally, but the whole question turns on what the topic of the choice is.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:50 PM. Reason : add]

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : being nice]

3/7/2006 12:46:55 PM

The point is stupid. I obviously understand that they think the women's clinics are targetted at low income populations, which, if true, isn't that surprising. I haven't seen any studies on this, but I'm guessing lower income women are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and are obviously less able to provide for the child. Furthermore, it's completely obvious that any sort of business is going to be more likely to be located in a population center, not in a fucking suburb.

Quote :

"No, I am not anti choice. As I said, even I have been known to choose things on occasion. The whole issue is WHAT is the choice. Choosing between sweet tea or Dr Pepper? No problem, choose away. Choosing to take an innocent human life? That's a horse of a different color. The crux of the issue is not choice, but the crux of the issue is the TOPIC of the choice. That topic is abortion. So I prefer to cut through the semantics about "choice" and get to what is the real topic. No one is against choosing things generally, but the whole question turns on what the topic of the choice is."

Reading this post just gave me cancer. You know perfectly well what somebody means when they say "pro-choice". You can write multiple inane paragraphs, getting into a semantics argument that nobody but yourself sees the need for, but it's just a waste of time. It's no less ambiguous a term than "pro-life".

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:53 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/7/2006 12:50:26 PM

So just because you aren't able to provide for the child, means the child should be killed?

Again, apply it to the two year old. Say one day Daddy loses his job, and comes home and says "Sorry Martha, we can no longer provide for junior, I guess we'll have to put him down." Would that be reasonable, or unreasonable?

^ Cancer should be treated at the earliest possible stage. I'll let you get to that immediately then.

I know what it means, but the point is why should I allow the other side to define the terms of the discussion? You can use the euphemism "pro-choice" to defend ANYTHING. And it is something that no one is really against. No one is against choice. You have never heard anyone say "No one should be allowed to ever choose anything, no matter what it is." So choice is not the issue. Abortion is the issue.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:57 PM. Reason : cancer is a very serious illness]

3/7/2006 12:54:13 PM

^ What do you propose doing with a pregnancy that will resullt in an unwanted child?
The child services system is broke and in many places *broken*.

Is a life of being unwanted, and in some cases treated extreemely poorly, really a goal here?

3/7/2006 12:57:14 PM

^^2 years old is probably too much, but at young enough ages the consciousness isn't nearly as developed as most of the animals we eat. so, in order to avoid a moral conflict, i also support infanticide.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 12:58:02 PM

^^ Well certainly not killing the child. I know a lot of people who live in bad financial circumstances, should I be allowed to just "put them out of their misery" so to speak?

You are now arguing that "The child is better off dead; he is going to have a terrible life anyway, so why not go ahead and kill him now". I have a few responses.

One, apply it to the two year old. Daddy dies, and Mommy is a high school dropout, beats her kid, and abuses drugs. Not exactly the Griffith family here. The two year old will grow up very poor, treated very badly. That is not a "good life" - should we just kill the child and get it over with?

Two, who are you, or the parent, or anyone else, to judge someone to be "better off dead"?

3/7/2006 1:01:30 PM

^ You haven't proposed a solution however.

And this isn't about 2 year olds. Hell, it's not even about 3rd trimester pregnancies in all honesty.
lets blur the subject hrm?
Fix the system to protect the children we have, and then come talk to me and I'll consider changing my stance then.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 1:02:40 PM

The unborn child is a child that we have. He does not suddenly poof into existence at birth. You are making an assumption.

You are assuming that there is a difference between the unborn child and the two year old. I do not think there is a difference. What is the scientific or philosophical difference? Both are here, both are human beings.

I'm certainly willing to work to improve the child and family services programs - I agree with you that they need serious help. But killing the children is certainly not the answer.

3/7/2006 1:08:00 PM

call me crazy

but i like to think of myself as a little more than an undeveloped parasite

3/7/2006 1:11:03 PM

crazy.

So development is the key to humanity? Those who are more developed are "more human" and have more rights than those who are not as developed? How about developmental disabilities, do they cause someone to be "less human"?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:12 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 1:11:28 PM

OK OK OK, despite all this talk about whether or not it is "Ok" to terminate a pregnancy, the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court should not be involved here... anyone want to argue with me on that good luck.

3/7/2006 1:14:47 PM

i think tooley's defense of abortion and infanticide is the clearest.

1) In order to have a right to life, one must desire to live
2) The desire to live requires that one have the concept of a continuing entity
3) Therefore, in order to have a right to life, one must have the concept of a continuing entity.

babies/fetuses dont have "the concept of a continuing entity"

3/7/2006 1:16:15 PM

Quote :

"call me crazy but i like to think of myself as a little more than an undeveloped parasite"

Did I miss something in these postings, or are you actually referring to the first stages of development as "parasitic"?

3/7/2006 1:18:06 PM

^^^^because clearly a 5 minute old zygote and a 20 year old individual with downs syndrome is the comparison i was making

^they're not?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ?]

3/7/2006 1:18:17 PM

"A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of that host."

3/7/2006 1:20:04 PM

Regardless of whether it was the comparison you are making or not, I would appreciate an answer to my question which is a logical attack upon a premise of the argument you are making. You are saying, as a premise of your argument, that development is the key to humanity. Look at your argument in syllogistic form:

Major premise: A human is one who has reached a certain stage of development
Minor premise: An unborn baby has not reached that certain stage of development
Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby is not a human.

I am questioning your major premise alone. I am not dealing with your minor premise at this time. So defend your major premise.

3/7/2006 1:22:06 PM

its more like

Major premise: an unborn child is a group of cells
Minor premise: a zygote is one cell
Conclusion: therefore a zygote is not an unborn child

we can find all sorts of grey area in between the two extremes

3/7/2006 1:27:13 PM

Your original objection did not seem to center around number of cells. Specifically you did use the term "undeveloped". Which indicates that your objection centered around development rather than number of cells.

Even so, a "group" can be a group of one.

3/7/2006 1:29:42 PM