My point was regarding abortion as a whole, and I think that's pretty obvious with how I framed the argument. So I'm going to ignore your strawman argument, because that wasn't the point I was making. I've conceded I think abortion in some circumstances is acceptable, but I think the current laws allow for too many abortions as a matter of convenience, as the survey results posted earlier in this thread point out.BrooksBearLives said:You're conflating two things.contrario said:Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.Waco1947 said:contrario said:So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.Waco1947 said:
Silliness. Sophistry
It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.
Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?
Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.
This law, for the 1,000,000th time, only allows late term abortion when the fetus is no longer viable, or the life of the mother is in danger.
If you want to talk about abortion in general, okay. But your seeming inability to separate the two is why pro-life people get a bad name. Your entire argument relies on the existence of some noetic form of liberal femi-nazi out helping young women get pregnant just so they can abort the baby the day before its due date.
That's not the reality of the issue.
If you TRULY can't see how a woman would want control over her own body and what happens to it, if you won't even IMAGINE the point of view that a woman would want control over her own body, then you will truly never find common ground with anyone whose beliefs and point of view aren't completely congruent with your own. And in that case, you're dooming us all to an endless back-and-forth over this issue.
There HAS to be common ground. You won't even cede that we should invest into birth control and comprehensive sex education. From other posts of yours, I'm drawing conclusions on your feelings about welfare and public aid.
You're not pro-life. You're pro-birth.
My bigger issue is that rights always terminate when the exercise of those rights infringe on the rights of another individual. In this case, the perfectically legal rights of women, and once it infringes on the rights of the unborn. We can argue about when life begins, but to me, once there is a heart beat and brain function, we are no longer terminating a clump of cells that have the potential to be life, we are terminating a human life in its most medically accepted form. If one were to intentionally stop the heart beat of any other human after birth, it would be an intolerable act of murder. What is particularly troubling is the comments released today from the Virginia governor, which echoes the sentiments of an Ivy League professor, that believes an "abortion" up to a few days after birth should be acceptable. That is the slippery slope that pro-choice proponents have been saying for years would never happen.
So while you may not entirely agree with my comparison, the fact is this is about perceived rights, just as slave owners believed they had the right to own another human, which slave owners viewed as property rights. Abolitionists of the day argued that the right to property ownership stopped when that claim infringed on the rights of other humans. While you may not agree with my comparison because you have likely had the pro-choice opinions for much of your adult life, it is a sound comparison if you step back and analyze it. And I fully welcome a reasonable rebuttal to this comparison, but it is a fruitless endevour if you try to change the subject with other points that I'm not specifically making.
