First up, Super_Lantern? Do we have another DC Comics fan on the board?
Next, there's not much to respond to here since it's mostly an emotional plea rather than a logical one. I mean, I guess respond emotionally, but I don't feel like doing so at the moment.
As for the gist of the discussion, I would like to see the pro-life crowd become more aggressive in their willingness to discuss the issues; I just hope that they don't become antagonistic because that just gets people to shut down and go with the flow which does not lead to any change of the heart and mind which are the real changes needed.
Okay, let's deal with this. In what way is the pro-life crowd not "aggressive in their willingness to discuss the issues"? What do you see as "the issues" rather than just "an emotional plea", and how do you see the two sides fitting into your paradigm? In what way is the pro-life crowd - but NOT the pro-abortion crowd - "antagonistic" and "making people shut down"?
Let's see if I can find anything worth responding to in this.
Can anybody give me a link to the actual stats on how many people have been born since 1973? The one in three have been aborted statement is powerful, but I don't want to repeat it unless I can back it up, and a quick Googling didn't help.
Seriously, dude? You want to comment on abortion, and you can't even find the basic stats on it?
Hoo boy.
Not sure where you're getting "one in three", but according to the Guttmacher Institute, twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
Also, can someone explain to me the logic of the Roe Vs. Wade decision? I don't see how the 14th amendment can be construed as to say anything about abortion.
Can't help you there, son. Roe v Wade, completely aside from the moral issues around abortion, was just really crappy case law in general.
I'm not sure that pitting the mother against the child is an accurate depiction of abortion, but describing abortion as the ultimate discrimination is another solid point.
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly.
- Ayn Rand
I agree that saying life begins at the moment of conception, when nothing remotely resembling humanity has been created, is ridiculous. On the other hand, that little packet of cells starts resembling a baby pretty quickly. It seems to me that since death is widely understood to be the cessation of brain activity, the beginning of brain activity should be the marker for the beginning of life. Brain waves can be detected at six weeks after conception. You want to kill that packed of cells before that point? Have at it. After that point, you are killing a thinking life form with its own human genetic code. That is the very definition of humanity.
I believe you said you wanted issues and reason, yes? So perhaps you could explain the statement "Nothing remotely resembling humanity has been created" to me. I assume we can agree that at the moment of conception, SOMETHING has been created, so what DOES it resemble, if not humanity? What do you think humanity is?
And "that little packet of cells starts resembling a baby"? I think what you mean is "starts resembling a newborn infant", and have mistakenly assumed that that's the only definition of the word "baby".
Cessation of brain activity is not actually the definition of death. It's the definition of when and how we can recognize death. Furthermore, "life" is not scientifically defined as "brain activity", since there are many organisms on Earth which are alive, but do not have brains as humans do. Once upon a time, death was diagnosed by lack of detectable breathing and heartbeat, which resulted in people being buried alive while in severe comas, or suddenly waking up at their own funerals.
you are in your retard phase huh?
still doesnt matter, its none of your business.
You are suggesting the murder of a human being is not society's business or you are suggesting that a fetus is not human? If it is the former, then that's quite a position. If it's the latter, then please take a look at the paragraph directly above starting, "I agree that..."
50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are much more likely to be abused.
Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.
I make the following argument not because I agree with it but just to point out the problem with your train of thought. Democrats support the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That act made incandescent lights untennable and forced consumers to switch to CFLs. CFL lights release mercury into the air when broken.
Democrats are pro-mercury poisoning.
Every law will have far reaching effects some of which will be negative.
I honestly have to love the leftist view that child abuse is a normal, explainable, logical behavior that can occur in anyone and everyone, and only to be expected of women who aren't allowed to simply kill their unwanted offspring early on.
