|
The Right Reverend Bush is at it again | by Blackbyrd2 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
I don't buy the "woman's life at risk" argument | by crash_ | 2003-11-06 05:28:35 |
|
Why force a woman to undergo major surgery | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 06:00:22 |
|
So it can grow up and be president someday? | by NOLAWitch | 2003-11-06 06:04:53 |
|
Anti-abortion != religion, fundamentalism. | by walkon | 2003-11-06 06:53:45 |
|
But religion, fundamentalism == anti-abortion. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 07:09:43 |
|
Then what's the standard? | by walkon | 2003-11-06 08:33:10 |
|
For a number of reasons. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 09:17:38 |
|
But... Those reasons would only convice someone | by walkon | 2003-11-06 09:51:33 |
|
That's not something you're going to find. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 11:27:32 |
|
If that standard doesn't exist, | by walkon | 2003-11-06 12:50:46 |
|
They don't have a place in the public debate | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 14:23:30 |
| Are we going in circles? |
by walkon |
2003-11-06 14:53:04 |
My main point remains, that you can't expect any pro-lifer to buy your argument that they should drop out of the public debate. That's only true if they're wrong...which reduces it to silliness. No one's going to stop arguing because you tell them that they're wrong.
"The mother is a person, the fetus is not and that negates your next sentence."
To quote myself, "The right of self-determination doesn't favor either party unless the fetus is not a person--and if you prove that to someone, you're done, there's no need to argue further." The question of when personhood begins is the only question that matters. What's the point in talking about anything else, when everything comes back to that point.
"The U.S. has a long legal history of determining that the fetus is not a person."
When was the long legal history of Africans not being people "proven wrong"? What scientific proofs were used as the basis of the effort to end slavery? To whom did the abolitionists submit this evidence before they were given permission to enter the public debate?
"Sure, 83 days as a bright line is fine with me. Heck, some civilizations have defined the bright line as 365 and any death up to that is of no legal consequence."
You side-stepped the point completely. Just because a standard of personhood is "bright-line" doesn't mean it's a good standard. If you're fine with 83 days, how about 18 years? Would you be fine with it if we passed a Constitutional amendment to that effect? Or how about, "only right-handed humans are people"? And to quote myself again, "I don't see the rationality in birth as the dividing line because I don't see how a movement through space can possibly infer personhood."
Or is it that you think personhood is an artificial concept?
"If it's not cruel to force someone to risk their life (which is what pregnancy can be) for your personal belief system, how would you describe it?"
If I don't skin 20 live cats every day, my heart will explode. For you to try to stop me because of your odd belief system to the contrary is cruel. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
You're doing the sidestepping. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 15:23:40 |
|
OK... | by walkon | 2003-11-06 16:17:06 |
|
Just in case you check back.... | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 19:07:02 |
|
And in case *you* do. | by walkon | 2003-11-07 00:39:33 |
|
Breaking this up.. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-07 07:57:31 |
