Debate Now Are you pro-life, or pro-choice?

[candycorn]

And there you have it; wholesale dishonesty.

No video will change your mind and no video will change my mind about a woman’s right to privacy.

First of all, am I being called dishonest because I don't agree with Hillary's 2nd Amendment views?

No you’re being called dishonest because you won’t admit that there would be no way you’d change your mind on HRC or the 2nd Amendment based on any You Tube video (or hell, any feature length film) I could show you.

Just like I admit, there is nothing you could show me along the same lines that would move me off supporting a woman’s right to privacy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And suddenly, the debate is not "why I'm pro choice or pro life" but how unqualified I am to discuss the matter. No longer is the substance of the thread being discussed, the topic has turned to my qualifications on to issue an opinion subject. That's not fair. I can only attribute such attitude to wholesale arrogance. Think about it. You think that just because you're a woman or because I've never been pregnant or raped or what have you, that you feel you can arbitrarily dismiss the opinion of a man who dares raise an opinion on the subject.

Yep. An attempt to get people to debate honestly on the issues of abortion was a pure waste of my time.

 

[Blackrook]

If you refuse to watch the video then you're in the same position as Albert Speer, who, at the Nuremberg trial, claimed he knew nothing about war crimes against the Jews, even at his own munitions factories.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe without reservation that a woman should be made to carry the child to term, and to take care of the child, regardless of her financial circumstances or other plans for life. I think this will serve as a sufficient deterrent, and perhaps serve as a way to make the woman think hard before she decides to have unprotected sex.”

And what you believe is unlawful, un-Constitutional, and utterly reprehensible.

Here we see the arrogance, authoritarianism, and advocacy of more government, more government interference in our personal lives, and more government at the expense of individual liberty common to most on the right.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law is illegal, the notion that doing so would act as a “sufficient deterrent” to abortion is as wrong as it is ignorant and naïve – a ridiculous premise completely devoid of fact or merit.

Women were having abortions for millennia before Roe, and they’ll continue to do so regardless of whether it’s legal or not.

It’s usually at this juncture those hostile to privacy rights will claim that with abortion ‘banned,’ “even if one abortion is prevented, banning abortion is worth it.”

This wrongheaded perception completely misses the point, as it detracts from making an actual, viable effort to end the practice of abortion, rendering it no longer necessary.

Consequently, for most on the right hostile to privacy rights, the goal is not to ‘end abortion,’ but the keep alive a partisan wedge issue conservatives can use as a political weapon and to energize the republican base and social right.

 

[Coyote]

So in this thread, people aren't allowed to say they have religious objections to abortion?

Nope. I'm uninterested in it. I hear and make enough religious arguments against abortion to last me a lifetime. I want people to dig deep into their conscience to make their case. In this instance, the Bible is nothing more than the easy way out.

It's going to be a short thread.

Feel free to leave if you wish.

I think it makes for an interesting discussion when you leave religion out of it, though it raises some questions - for example, without religion, what makes human life valuable in and of itself? And that is part of what drives the abortion debate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No you’re being called dishonest because you won’t admit that there would be no way you’d change your mind on HRC or the 2nd Amendment based on any You Tube video (or hell, any feature length film) I could show you.

That is you making a supposition. You're calling me dishonest yet you wouldn't even watch the videos. How can I be dishonest when you're the one who... sigh, won't pipe down long enough to simply watch a 4 minute video?

How can someone who refuses to give a fair hearing to the other side accuse someone else of being dishonest?

By the way, I do recall one of the rules stating "no talking points" but here we are. "Her body, her rights" is not a sufficient argument.

 

[Gracie]

I don't need to see the video. It won't change my mind.
Just as I don't need to see tortured animals to know it happens.
Viewing something hasn't a damn thing to do with an opinion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Would any video make you vote for HRC or take a different stance on the 2nd Amendment?

She would have to have the power change my mind for me, first. Then I would consider supporting her stances. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion. So is Hillary Clinton. Dismissed.

And there you have it; wholesale dishonesty.

No video will change your mind and no video will change my mind about a woman’s right to privacy.

At least I’m honest about it.

Again, anyone who characterizes the choice to abort a fetus in terms of “convenience” is disqualified from the discussion. Does it happen? I’m sure it does. Is it the frequent? No.

Correct.

And again: citizens do not need to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right, including the right to privacy.

Whether a woman seeks an abortion in the context of “convenience” is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, just as a gun owner needn’t ‘justify’ possessing a firearm to indeed do so.

Citizens cannot be ‘compelled’ to ‘explain themselves’ to government or private society why, how, or in what manner they exercise their fundamental rights, nor are citizens authorized to seek to deny citizens their fundamental rights through force of law because others might engage in lawful, Constitutionally protected activities they oppose for personal, subjective reasons.

 

[Gracie]

And, now that the OP has conveniently derailed his own thread so he can bicker with a differing viewpoint and not understanding what she is referring to on the CONTEXT of why she said what she said and instead is making it all about him and also arguing about debate rules and what is considered (to him) as not "a sufficient answer"...I'm done.

It started off pretty politely but I've seen the wash/rinse/repeat thing and have no desire to watch it again.

Over and out.

/unsub

 

[TemplarKormac]

So in this thread, people aren't allowed to say they have religious objections to abortion?

Nope. I'm uninterested in it. I hear and make enough religious arguments against abortion to last me a lifetime. I want people to dig deep into their conscience to make their case. In this instance, the Bible is nothing more than the easy way out.

It's going to be a short thread.

Feel free to leave if you wish.

I think it makes for an interesting discussion when you leave religion out of it, though it raises some questions - for example, without religion, what makes human life valuable in and of itself? And that is part of what drives the abortion debate.

Thank you Coyote, for being willing enough to actually engage me, without taking pot shots at my character or qualifications.

Now, from a purely non religious standpoint, a human life is essential to perpetrating the existence of the human species. When a woman is pregnant with a child she intends to bear, her mind perpetually dwells on the safety and well being of the child within her. The very existence of human maternal instinct would indicate the true value of human life. Thus why the strong instinct for any form of life be it human or otherwise, to perpetuate the species. Life is valuable even if you aren't a human being.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And again: citizens do not need to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right, including the right to privacy.

Okay... just this once, I'll bite.

If that were true, why do gun owners have to justify their right to own a firearm? Why do they need to justify exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? Just saying Clayton. Why all the background checks, the gun laws?

The very Constitution itself guarantees a right to life, without even defining what a person in that context is in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

"a person shall have the right to life, liberty, and property"

nor shall a

"state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So in this thread, people aren't allowed to say they have religious objections to abortion?

Nope. I'm uninterested in it. I hear and make enough religious arguments against abortion to last me a lifetime. I want people to dig deep into their conscience to make their case. In this instance, the Bible is nothing more than the easy way out.

It's going to be a short thread.

Feel free to leave if you wish.

I think it makes for an interesting discussion when you leave religion out of it, though it raises some questions - for example, without religion, what makes human life valuable in and of itself? And that is part of what drives the abortion debate.

The irony of this is that privacy rights jurisprudence also protects citizens’ religious beliefs, where to oppose abortion on religious grounds is just as Constitutionally valid as to defend a woman’s protected liberty of choice.

Indeed, the Roe/Casey Court acknowledges the fact that there are those who believe abortion is wrong on religious grounds, that abortion is a practice that needs to be ended, and that citizens are at liberty to seek to end the practice of abortion.

But in doing so, citizens must seek to end the practice of abortion in a manner consistent with the Constitution and its case law, where the privacy rights of women are not violated by the states.

 

[Blackrook]

Back in my day, we didn't have a magic pill to take if raped, to get rid of what was planted that was not asked to be planted..but FORCED on the woman. Soon as she finds out she is pregnant back then....she gets the abortion. Nothing wrong with that at all. She didn't ask to be a incubator for an asshole. Its her right to say "get that thing out of my body" and it be done. Period. But it usually took missing a period..which means a month or two after the rape.

Today, things are different.

It's capital punishment for rape, which is not normally a capital crime, and it's capital punishment of an innocent person who is not the rapist. And it's not a "thing" it's a person, a human being, who has just as much right to live as you do. I can understand that some pro-lifers want to compromise for rape, but it is not a principled compromise. If a fetus is a human being, which it is, it is never moral to murder it.

 

[MisterBeale]

You would express your opinion in the context of private society only, seeking not to ‘ban’ abortion in violation of the right to privacy.

Huh? What exactly are you getting at here?

What he is getting at is the false dilemma you presented.


A lot of folks don't think this is an issue for the government or anybody else to stick their damn noses in.

This is a family issue and a women's issue.


Think about this, if you had a child that was suffering greatly, some severe disease that was degenerative, and every day they were in terrible pain, and they knew for absolute certainty that the end result of this disease would be death, in say, twelve months.

Now let's say this same child, in the progression of this illness, first goes deaf, then blind, then dumb, and can't hear, basically your Terri Schiavo nightmare scenario times ten. What you DO KNOW, from the shrieks of pain, is that your poor baby is in terrible pain every night.


Who's business is the health of this child, yours, or the government and society's?


Most of us who have a family, and have been part of a family, believe it is nobody elses business how we conduct the affairs of our own family. Some would say, put the child out of it's misery if there is no chance of a successful resolution to that illness, that the pain till death is cruel.

Others would say, that the law is the law, both social laws, state laws, and laws of God, and only natural death is legal. The parents must follow the strictures of society.


For those that believe in the privacy of the family, in extreme cases, they can even see the justification for infantacide, I'll bet you could never imagine that, could you? You would probably rather have babies starve, eh?

OTH, others seem to think we should let DHS come in and raise our children. If you believe that, I'm sure you have no problem telling families how they should conduct their private family business. You want to tell them how old their kids should be in order to walk to school or to the park alone now too?



I watched your videos. I found them horrifiying.

It didn't change my mind. I'm against abortion. Most folks I know would never have one.

However, let me tell you a little story. My son's mother had one, she told me she had one before we first started dating. When she was much younger.


She knew I was against them though.


About six months after we were engaged, she came to me and told me she was pregnant. Then she asked me with fear in her eyes, "What are we going to do?"

Now, I never knew, to this day, if abortion crossed her mind, or if she was just worried about our future, but I immediately told her, we celebrate.


My personal view is, if men want there to be less abortions in this world, they need to step up. It's really just as simple as that. They need to show how over joyed they are when they become fathers and get rings on the fingers those mothers.

Make families, not death, if you want a solution.



The government and the community have no business in personal private family matters.


Family should always be more sovereign than the government.

 

[Coyote]

So in this thread, people aren't allowed to say they have religious objections to abortion?

Nope. I'm uninterested in it. I hear and make enough religious arguments against abortion to last me a lifetime. I want people to dig deep into their conscience to make their case. In this instance, the Bible is nothing more than the easy way out.

It's going to be a short thread.

Feel free to leave if you wish.

I think it makes for an interesting discussion when you leave religion out of it, though it raises some questions - for example, without religion, what makes human life valuable in and of itself? And that is part of what drives the abortion debate.

Thank you Coyote, for being willing enough to actually engage me, without taking pot shots at my character or qualifications.

Now, from a purely non religious standpoint, a human life is essential to perpetrating the existence of the human species. When a woman is pregnant with a child she intends to bear, her mind perpetually dwells on the safety and well being of the child within her. The very existence of human maternal instinct would indicate the true value of human life. Thus why the strong instinct for any form of life be it human or otherwise, to perpetuate the species. Life is valuable even if you aren't a human being.

It's a tricky discussion to have in a civil manner

LIFE is valuable, yes. I'm not sure human life in and of it self, is. Unfortunately...its 2am....I'm going to lose coherence rapidy

 

[Blackrook]

Remember also that citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

And such is the case with the right to privacy.

For example, it’s not ‘incumbent’ upon a woman to ‘prove’ when an embryo becomes a ‘person,’ or to ‘explain’ to anyone why she has decided to have an abortion – the state in particular.

Her decision to do so for whatever reason or reasons is more than sufficient, her right to privacy immune from attack by the state, where the right to exercise one’s right to privacy cannot be subject to an undue burden by government (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

You do realize that all of this "legal reasoning" is smoke and mirrors. None of this language is based on any of the text that actually appears in the United States Constitution.

 

[MisterBeale]

And again: citizens do not need to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right, including the right to privacy.

Okay... just this once, I'll bite.

If that were true, why do gun owners have to justify their right to own a firearm? Why do they need to justify exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? Just saying Clayton. Why all the background checks, the gun laws?

The very Constitution itself guarantees a right to life, without even defining what a person in that context is.

"a person shall have the right to life, liberty, and property"

I completely agree with your second amendment argument, but in this context, it is the FAMILY that decides when the child's life begins, not the STATE.

When that STATE starts making it's own babies in test tubes, it can decide when life begins.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are you pro-life, or pro-choice?"

Which brings us back as to why this fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

Everyone is opposed to abortion.

Everyone believes abortion is wrong.

Everyone wants to bring about the end of abortion.

That not the point of conflict and disagreement.

The point of conflict and disagreement can be found as to how to end the practice – where there are those who seek to end abortion in violation of the Constitution and the privacy rights of women, and those who seek to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and respecting the privacy rights of women.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So in this thread, people aren't allowed to say they have religious objections to abortion?

Nope. I'm uninterested in it. I hear and make enough religious arguments against abortion to last me a lifetime. I want people to dig deep into their conscience to make their case. In this instance, the Bible is nothing more than the easy way out.

It's going to be a short thread.

Feel free to leave if you wish.

I think it makes for an interesting discussion when you leave religion out of it, though it raises some questions - for example, without religion, what makes human life valuable in and of itself? And that is part of what drives the abortion debate.

Thank you Coyote, for being willing enough to actually engage me, without taking pot shots at my character or qualifications.

Now, from a purely non religious standpoint, a human life is essential to perpetrating the existence of the human species. When a woman is pregnant with a child she intends to bear, her mind perpetually dwells on the safety and well being of the child within her. The very existence of human maternal instinct would indicate the true value of human life. Thus why the strong instinct for any form of life be it human or otherwise, to perpetuate the species. Life is valuable even if you aren't a human being.

It's a tricky discussion to have in a civil manner

LIFE is valuable, yes. I'm not sure human life in and of it self, is. Unfortunately...its 2am....I'm going to lose coherence rapidly

Hmm, so is human life not valuable? Forgive me if I sound unnerved by that line of reasoning... :O

Alas, granted, the hour is late, coherence is often in short supply in the darkest of night.

 

[Blackrook]

You would express your opinion in the context of private society only, seeking not to ‘ban’ abortion in violation of the right to privacy.

Huh? What exactly are you getting at here?

What he is getting at is the false dilemma you presented.


A lot of folks don't think this is an issue for the government or anybody else to stick their damn noses in.

This is a family issue and a women's issue.


Think about this, if you had a child that was suffering greatly, some severe disease that was degenerative, and every day they were in terrible pain, and they knew for absolute certainty that the end result of this disease would be death, in say, twelve months.

Now let's say this same child, in the progression of this illness, first goes deaf, then blind, then dumb, and can't hear, basically your Terri Schiavo nightmare scenario times ten. What you DO KNOW, from the shrieks of pain, is that your poor baby is in terrible pain every night.


Who's business is the health of this child, yours, or the government and society's?


Most of us who have a family, and have been part of a family, believe it is nobody elses business how we conduct the affairs of our own family. Some would say, put the child out of it's misery if there is no chance of a successful resolution to that illness, that the pain till death is cruel.

Others would say, that the law is the law, both social laws, state laws, and laws of God, and only natural death is legal. The parents must follow the strictures of society.


For those that believe in the privacy of the family, in extreme cases, they can even see the justification for infantacide, I'll bet you could never imagine that, could you? You would probably rather have babies starve, eh?

OTH, others seem to think we should let DHS come in and raise our children. If you believe that, I'm sure you have no problem telling families how they should conduct their private family business. You want to tell them how old their kids should be in order to walk to school or to the park alone now too?



I watched your videos. I found them horrifiying.

It didn't change my mind. I'm against abortion. Most folks I know would never have one.

However, let me tell you a little story. My son's mother had one, she told me she had one when we first started dating.


She knew I was against them though.


About six months after we were engaged, she came to me and told me she was pregnant. Then she asked me with fear in her eyes, "What are we going to do?"

Now, I never knew, to this day, if abortion crossed her mind, or if she was just worried about our future, but I immediately told her, we celebrate.


My personal view is, if men want there to be less abortions in this world, they need to step up. It's really just as simple as that. They need to show how over joyed they are when they become fathers and get rings on the fingers those mothers.

Make families, not death, if you want a solution.



The government and the community have no business in personal private family matters.


Family should always be more sovereign than the government.

In the days of the ancient Roman Republic, fathers had the right to put their children to death.
Pater familias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eventually, the Romans found this practice uncivilized, and restricted it by law.

But you would revive ancient customs, practiced by pagans thousands of years ago, rejecting all the moral and ethical advances our society has made during that time.