OK, I'll ask again.

[There has been some turnover so: Should Abortion be legal?]

There has been some turnover so: Should Abortion be legal?

yes

 30 (68.2%)

no

 12 (27.3%)

Only when the baby deserves it.(generally no, but will agree to some exceptions such as incest/rape)

 2 (4.5%)

Total Members Voted: 33

[King Dunson]

I don't think abortion should be legal.  I do not see the difference between that and murder.  Even if I were to concede some abortion rights, the legislation should certainly not give women full discretion, nor should it allow healthy, financially stable women to abort their babies.  I think it is wrong to end a life.  I think people need to have sex responsibly and accept all the consequences of their actions.  I think the argument that "it's my body" is completely and utterly unconvincing.  I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  I hope it will be soon. 

What about the death penalty then? You're Catholic, right?

The death penalty is absolutely immoral.

I am Catholic in background, not practice and am unsure about the existence of God and Jesus.

[Happy_Weasel]

I don't think abortion should be legal.  I do not see the difference between that and murder.  Even if I were to concede some abortion rights, the legislation should certainly not give women full discretion, nor should it allow healthy, financially stable women to abort their babies.  I think it is wrong to end a life.  I think people need to have sex responsibly and accept all the consequences of their actions.  I think the argument that "it's my body" is completely and utterly unconvincing.  I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  I hope it will be soon. 

What about the death penalty then? You're Catholic, right?

The death penalty is absolutely immoral.

I am Catholic in background, not practice and am unsure about the existence of God and Jesus.

Yes, I have wondered if society should adopt an absolute or narrow life principle, instead of one construed to social interest. Then again, what do we do with abortionists in the absolute principle and when does the killing stop in the narrow life principle?

[H4CS]

I chose the word Unborn for neutrality. I dont call them babies (since that begs the question) because you dont think they are babies.

Words have meanings; the word you're looking for is fetus.  Unborn could refer to any number of things, but it makes me think of the undead, which would be just as inaccurate a term as unborn.  While we're at it, I don't think you know what it means to beg the question.

[fatchance]

Fetus can be also a loaded term. I just try to avoid terms that seem to presuppose the very argument they are making. Baby, fetus, child and embryo all seem to do this. I use "unborn" because it is the opposite of "Born" which all would agree is a baby. I think the opposite of "Undead" would be "unalive". I use unborn simply because ..it is not born yet. But like I said to Hppyweesl, for the sake of getting back to the debate, we can use any terms one wishes. I wouls place the violatile happyface here, but to avoid problems, please take this in good will.

As far as the meaning of "beg the question" I really dont know what it means, I simply hear it in the context of "presupposing something" so I might very well be using it incorrectly.

[H4CS]

Fetus can be also a loaded term. I just try to avoid terms that seem to presuppose the very argument they are making. Baby, fetus, child and embryo all seem to do this. I use "unborn" because it is the opposite of "Born" which all would agree is a baby. I think the opposite of "Undead" would be "unalive". I use unborn simply because ..it is not born yet. But like I said to Hppyweesl, for the sake of getting back to the debate, we can use any terms one wishes. I wouls place the violatile happyface here, but to avoid problems, please take this in good will.

As far as the meaning of "beg the question" I really dont know what it means, I simply hear it in the context of "presupposing something" so I might very well be using it incorrectly.

I think terminology is more significant than anything that can be accomplished in this thread.   The term for a mammalian organism between the embryonic stage and birth is fetus.  One does not dissect undead pigs in biology class*.    My coffee mug was also not born, so I guess it would also be unborn.

To beg the question (petitio principii) is to justify the truth of a statement through an implicit or explicit premise.  Thus, this statement is an example of begging the question: "As foeti are human lives and the killing of a human is murder, aborting a fetus is murder."  This is just tautological and not an actual deduction.

*I never took bio (cheap-ass high school) so I never dissected anything, but that's beside the point.

[fatchance]

Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.

All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.

From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).

[Happy_Weasel]

Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.

All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.

From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).

All I am doing is arguing common sense. How can you be "born" without being born? Sure, when a fetus is capable of being born (viable), it should be protected as a newborn, but that's only because it can be born. 

[H4CS]

Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.

All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.

From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).

All I am doing is arguing common sense. How can you be "born" without being born? Sure, when a fetus is capable of being born (viable), it should be protected as a newborn, but that's only because it can be born. 

This is mindboggling, I'm out of here.

[fatchance]

For someone who balked at my happyface you seem to be quite liberal with your own faces (which are not in goodwill by the way)

Nevermind though, I just would expect the person who started this thread to not lose it the first happyface he gets. You could temper your posts with a bit more tolerance.

So why is viability  the issue. I dont think that disqualifies the fetus of personhood. Diabetics are not viable, they depend on insulin, yet remain persons. Scuba divers and astronauts depend on oxygen from some other source- not viable? Hospitals are full of people who are not viable and rely on all kinds of machinery to sustain life, yet we cannot go around unplugging them.

[conoroberst]

Fatchance you say that its a person before its born.  You say that viability shouldnt be an issue.  My question to you is, does this mean that sperm is alive?  It has a chance at developing with a little help into a human.  Wouldnt condoms and birth control be just earlier stages of abortion?