Black Conservatives

[«ě»]

Because every part of the burden is on the woman. That part should be obvious, really. Anyway, about the female-male ratio I see that you are right. Numbers I've found indicate that 24% of women are for criminalized abortion while 20% of the men are. I'm glad to see numbers are this low at least. That being said, it seems that abortion restrictions in the US are very free, perhaps because the debate tends to be directed towards 'legal or criminal' with no in between, which is probably where a majority of the population would end up.

I don't believe in victimless crimes

I like that attitude, but I'm not sure what constitutes a victim less crime really. I understand that in this case you consider a baby to be a person at the time of conception, and I won't bother argue that, we're not going to agree on that part. But in general, what do you consider victim less? Are we talking just direction as a result of the crime, or do we also consider indirect victims in a prior event to the crime? Drug smuggling in relation to drug use as criminal for example.

Yes, I realize this thread is derailed, but I do think constructive discussion died a few pages ago, so hopefully no harm now.

Edit; Another part to be taken into consideration is that criminalizing it would in reality be unenforceable. The world has become a much smaller place than just 30-40 years ago. Where women previously may have sorted to illegal abortions, today the same women (except the poor ones) could simply get on a train, bus or plane to somewhere it is legal and have the procedure done. The poor ones would still be forced to illegal abortions, but those who really were that committed to it probably wouldn't be frightened away from doing it. Also, with cheaper and higher quality technology illegal abortions would most likely involve considerably less risk, and thus be less likely to frighten someone away from doing it.

[stsherri]

A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date. Based on science and rationality we can very precisely know how a fetus has developed at any given time. My personal opinion is that the 12 weeks which are a standard here seems reasonable. I don't think anyone will objectively claim that the fetus has developed into a person at that time. Yet again, I say objectively, as based on biology, not some religious (usually) belief that egg+sperm=instant person.

What is it about a trip down a birth canal that instantiates such a distinct and dramatic change in status for a child, I wonder?  Seems arbitrary to me.

Well, I am one to state my opinion, just like you state yours. For some reason everyone seems to expect me to put a disclaimer on my posts to explain that I am writing my opinion, where as nobody else seems to need that. That being said, I really think we should be able to chalk this one down to common sense actually. Public policy should be based on facts, science and reality. Metaphysics first of all does not fulfill any empirical requirements, plus it's highly subjective. A public policy that applies to everyone in a nation should not be based on the subjective opinion of whatever group of people happen to be in possession of the most power at the time; it should be based on objective facts which are not (without self-delusion) rejected.

Point taken.  I respectfully submit (and I mean this constructively...not trying to be caustic) that perhaps it is your dismissive and condescending attitude toward others that creates this burden on you.  Your approach is not "Oh, that's interesting, but I disagree and this is why..."  Rather, it's "anyone who does not see this issue the same way as me is irrational."

Re: metaphysics.  I think you are confusing metaphysics with religious beliefs or spirituality or something.  Certainly there is a metaphysical component to these things, but I'm speaking of metaphysics in a more strictly philosophical, and thus more general, sense.  The question: "Is there special value to human life (in contrast to other forms of life)?" suggests contemplation of the metaphysical. 

[«ě»]

What is it about a trip down a birth canal that instantiates such a distinct and dramatic change in status for a child, I wonder?  Seems arbitrary to me.

It is largely arbitrary, but we have to put the limit somewhere even if that limit is at conception and that would also be quite arbitrary since little human is evolved at that point. That being said, I'm quite surprised to see that the US allows abortions up until the day of birth, albeit they are quite rare.

Point taken.  I respectfully submit (and I mean this constructively...not trying to be caustic) that perhaps it is your dismissive and condescending attitude towards others that creates this burden on you.  Your approach is not "Oh, that's interesting, but I disagree and this is why..."  Rather, it's "anyone who does not see this issue the same way as me is irrational."

Well, yes the usage of words like insane and irrational are consciously (?) used to provoke some reaction. That being said, it is my nature to be quite blunt in speech, that is a part of the culture I've grown up in. I get the impression that Americans are generally a bit more diplomatic about stating their opinions. Perhaps this is something I should adapt, perhaps it isn't, I haven't quite made up my mind yet

Re: metaphysics.  I think you are confusing metaphysics with religious beliefs or spirituality or something.  Certainly there is a metaphysical component to these things, but I'm speaking of metaphysics in a more strictly philosophical, and thus more general, sense.  The question: "Is there special value to human life (in contrast to other forms of life)?" suggests contemplation of the metaphysical. 

Nope, we speak of the same thing, just that I equate the philosophical parts with the religious parts in this matter. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the general idea, just that this is something that will be so individual, I do not feel we should base something as rigid as laws on it. I find the question of both when life starts and the value of human life to be quite interesting, but I do not believe me nor anyone else has the right answer to this question, because it will be different for every one of us. I'm quite a fan of as little governmental intervention as possible, and I'd rather have as few things as possible outlawed. I believe people should have the right to decide over their own life and body, yet I do realize that there are things we need to restrict. I do not feel abortion is one of those things, at least not first trimester abortions where it can be safely concluded that the fetus/baby does not suffer or have any conscious awareness. Thus, up till this point I believe this to be a victimless crime, as someone mentioned. I do not like the ideas I get from reading about partial birth abortions, for the same reason - we know that the fetus/baby at this time actually do suffer pain, etc.

[stsherri]

A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date.

On the contrary, many, many people argue you should be able to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.  Some even argue that the right to terminate the life of a child continues until 2-4 months after birth.  This is extreme, obviously, and does not represent mainstream pro-choice views.

[DDBY]

You gut guys use an awful lot of big words.  You must be right; because of that.

I haven't found <<e>> to be disagreeable.  He's just expressing an opinion.  I suspect that alot of the time he's playing devils advocate but that's beside the point.

I'v'e found that when people have a weakened argument to defend they tend to confuscate the language with abstract conceptual applications, figuratively speaking of course...

Lets lighten up on the lawyer speak and talk straight here. Then we can acually focus on the issue at hand  and not argue over definition. 

[«ě»]

A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date.

On the contrary, many, many people argue you should be able to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.  Some even argue that the right to terminate the life of a child continues until 2-4 months after birth.  This is extreme, obviously, and does not represent mainstream pro-choice views.

Yes, I found out both of these parts, and sorta addressed it in the post above. I certainly do not agree with this, and as I found out from Wikipedia, the largest portion on the abortion matters are for legalization, but for stricter regulations... Which I suppose is a good thing with practices like this.

I suspect that alot of the time he's playing devils advocate but that's beside the point.

Shush!

[stsherri]

I haven't found <<e>> to be disagreeable.  He's just expressing an opinion.  I suspect that alot of the time he's playing devils advocate but that's beside the point.

Yes. I think <<e>> and I have had a very civil discourse.  It was the dialaogue with a couple earlier participants where I think there were some marginally offensive remarks (not to mention the "your wife is a lunatic" jab). 

I'v'e found that when people have a weakened argument to defend they tend to confuscate the language with abstract conceptual applications, figuratively speaking of course...

Lets lighten up on the lawyer speak and talk straight here. Then we can acually focus on the issue at hand  and not argue over definition. 

My arguments must always be weak, because I almost always endeavor to consider things abstractly and conceptually.  I'm not sure I know how to speak "straight talk."  I guess I chose the right profession?

And <<e>>: no hard feelings, of course.  I respect your views (if they are, indeed, your own), and was trying to get to a place where I felt like you respected mine.  We are clearly operating from under different assumptions and in differing paradigms, and thus we are doomed to talk past one another on this issue, I think. 

[«ě»]

My views on abortion are certainly the ones I convey here yes. I do not however seriously believe your wife to be a lunatic for her beliefs etc, was trying to get some action going there, and I guess I succeeded:) And I hope you take no offense indeed, I enjoy a heated debate on forums, this is sort of a no blood, no foul arena for discussion in my opinion. I'm a tad bit more gentle in real life conversations:)

[7S]

My views on abortion are certainly the ones I convey here yes. I do not however seriously believe your wife to be a lunatic for her beliefs etc, was trying to get some action going there, and I guess I succeeded:) And I hope you take no offense indeed, I enjoy a heated debate on forums, this is sort of a no blood, no foul arena for discussion in my opinion. I'm a tad bit more gentle in real life conversations:)

wuss.

[img width= height=]http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/-/Puss-in-Boots---Shrek-2-Poster-C10123744.jpeg[/img]

[Keanu]

I'm a libertarian, I don't care if you do things I don't like. I don't like having a penis in my butt, but I'll defend your right...

::inserts penis in Longshot's butt::

::aborts the resulting lovechild::