(05-19-2011, 02:48 AM)Alram Wrote: To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

(05-19-2011, 04:24 AM)MEAT Wrote: ... I feel life is precious, but unlike you, I think people deserve the right to live, not be forced into a lifestyle where they will grow up ignorant, resentful, and destined for a criminal life. Who knows, maybe they could be one of the lucky ones... maybe not. But I think abortion has its purpose in this world!

(05-19-2011, 07:52 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: I just have to comment: I am thoroughly amused at how a thread on the death of bin Laden has morphed into a repetition of the Great Abortion Debate, with accompanying assertions about the value of life. Congrats to all involved.

(05-19-2011, 01:51 PM)Jester Wrote:

(05-19-2011, 02:48 AM)Alram Wrote: To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

This seems to be begging the question, no?

-Jester

(05-19-2011, 07:52 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: I just have to comment: I am thoroughly amused at how a thread on the death of bin Laden has morphed into a repetition of the Great Abortion Debate, with accompanying assertions about the value of life. Congrats to all involved.

Quote:Abortion is worse than al-Qaeda,' says Duke of Kent's son Lord Nicholas Windsor
Lord Nicholas Windsor, the son of the Duke of Kent, claims that Islamic terrorism is not such a big threat to Europe as abortion.


The Duchess of Kent has withdrawn from public life to such an extent that she is often described as a recluse, but her son Lord Nicholas Windsor is determined to speak out over causes that he believes in.

Lord Nicholas, 40, who lost his place in the line of succession when he became a Roman Catholic, has written a controversial article in which he claims that abortion is a bigger threat to Europe than al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism.

He describes abortion as "the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life" and calls for a "new abolitionism for Europe" in which abortion, like the slave trade, can be abolished.

While the threat of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda calls for "robust and, where necessary, lethal response", he claims in the American religious journal First Things that "these are not threats that appear existential and have not as yet provoked a real sense of public crisis".

(05-19-2011, 10:36 PM)Alram Wrote: I couldn't find any connection though between Osama and abortion.

(05-19-2011, 10:36 PM)Alram Wrote: Begging what question?
... that the child in the womb is not really a child at all.

(05-19-2011, 11:35 PM)--Pete Wrote: As soon as someone calls a 'fetus' a 'child', I realize that I'm dealing with an unthinking product of some form of indoctrination. At that point, I realize the game is not worth the candle -- the damage done to that brain is as insidious and as permanent as a lobotomy. Unless the person in question is no more than in his mid teens, there is no hope of him ever becoming a logical, rational individual. One cannot have a discussion with such an individual, because the very possibility of a position contrary to his which is not wrong is not a concept his damaged mind can contain or comprehend.

(05-19-2011, 11:35 PM)--Pete Wrote: Hi,

(05-19-2011, 10:36 PM)Alram Wrote: Begging what question?
... that the child in the womb is not really a child at all.

First, to be clear: "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where one side asks the other to accept an assumption that is logically equivalent to the conclusion that the asking side is trying to prove. Although often used by ignorant people to mean "raising the question", it is not the same thing.

Second, calling a fetus a "child in the womb" is a perfect example of begging the question. The anti-abortion argument that it is wrong to kill a child is hard to dispute. By getting your pro-choice opponents to accept the premise that a fetus is a child, you win the argument by leaving aside the more complex issue of what a fetus is and whether aborting a fetus is justified and under what conditions.

It is similar to the "child pornography is evil because children need protection" crap that floats around. By defining neither 'child' nor 'pornography' until after the opponent has accepted the premise, you win an argument that is nonsense on the face of it. Is a 17 year old a child? Does he become an adult at the stroke of midnight on his 18th birthday? What if he lives near a time zone line. If he crosses that line at 11:00 PM his time and 'becomes' an adult by doing so; engages in a pornographic photo shoot; then crosses the line back at 11:30 PM his original time, are those photos child pornography? Is a picture of a naked baby pornography?

As soon as someone calls a 'fetus' a 'child', I realize that I'm dealing with an unthinking product of some form of indoctrination. At that point, I realize the game is not worth the candle -- the damage done to that brain is as insidious and as permanent as a lobotomy. Unless the person in question is no more than in his mid teens, there is no hope of him ever becoming a logical, rational individual. One cannot have a discussion with such an individual, because the very possibility of a position contrary to his which is not wrong is not a concept his damaged mind can contain or comprehend.

--Pete

(05-20-2011, 01:32 AM)Alram Wrote: Apparently I have a damaged brain because I do not agree with Pete.

(05-20-2011, 12:23 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Would that be opinion, or fact?

(05-20-2011, 12:23 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Technically a child is any offspring that is not yet an adult, then again circularly, is it offspring if is isn't yet born?

--Pete Wrote: First, to be clear: "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where one side asks the other to accept an assumption that is logically equivalent to the conclusion that the asking side is trying to prove. Although often used by ignorant people to mean "raising the question", it is not the same thing.

--Pete Wrote: If it can be fixed, it's called ignorance. If it can't, it's called stupidity.

(05-19-2011, 08:19 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I had to look back to page two to see how we got here again. I blame eppie for tossing out the "traditionalist" gauntlet! But, it was I who chomped on his bait once again defending the generalization of perceived evils of traditionalists.

(05-20-2011, 12:23 AM)kandrathe Wrote: As But biologically, a child is post birth, but your splitting hairs argument applies. Is it child if it could be born, but for some reason the birth is delayed by a few days or weeks (post term)? The word embryo comes to mind to define the in uterus potential non-human stage.

(05-20-2011, 05:07 AM)weakwarrior Wrote: Which only begs the question was I stupid? and raises the question was I ignorant?

(05-20-2011, 07:17 AM)eppie Wrote: Splitting hairs? I am not sure. If you choose to take this discussion to 'when can you call and embryo a child' it doesn't become anymore scientific.

• the thing killed must be alive
  
• you, the killer, must know or be aware that it is alive
  
• you must have the intention to kill it
  
• there must be an effort to kill
  
• the life must be killed as the result

Quote:Does it mean that whenever doctors were able to save the life of a very prematurely born child and set a 'new record' of minimal time in the womb and still alive we have to change the laws here?

Quote:Also in Africa most children that are born only a little bit prematurely will die during or just after birth while here in the west survival rates are a lot higher. Does that mean the date until when you can have an abortion should be different in Africa? Shouldn't the extreme pro-lifers better move to Africa and save children there?

Quote:I think we all agree that often abortion is the best thing to do.

Quote:We all agree that abortion should not be done because the mother wants to continue partying. I think that both in countries where abortion is legal and in countries where it is illegal personal drama's happen. I as pro-choicer want to be sure that abortions because of gender will not happen (at least not in my country) and I also realize that this might be difficult to check. But just banning abortion will not be the right thing to do. But most of all I think that it is the mother and fathers business. No government should tell a mother what to do with her body. And the most important thing to realize for both sides in this discussion is that having an abortion is a terrible thing for the mother and a choice that is not taken lightly. The exceptions on this should not be why we shape our law a certain way.

Quote:Of the 8,008 reported induced terminations of pregnancy among Wisconsin residents in 2008, 80 percent were surgical, 19 percent were chemically induced, and 0.4 percent were surgical procedures following a failed or incomplete chemically induced termination of pregnancy.

Quote:South Australia (SA) - The number of aborted babies delivered alive and left to die were as follows: in 2000 - 7 babies; 2001 - 14; 2002 - 7; 2003 - 3; 2004 - 13; 2005 - 5; 2006 - 3; 2007 - 5.

(05-20-2011, 11:37 PM)Alram Wrote: I don't know what kind of intellectual gymnastics can be used to justify either the killing or the failure to provide medical care for children who survive attempted abortions.

(05-21-2011, 12:52 AM)Jester Wrote: The chances of anti-abortion websites portraying abortion providers as heartless murderers, on the other hand, approaches unity.