"Slate" <slate1947_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60vm42tnev8ep7kjel0o5on6dijmlerhbu@4ax.com...

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:05:34 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Slate" <slate1947_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ihnh42dvp87oaqqe9ug0ouekoec037salu@4ax.com...

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:21:28 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Slate" <slate1947_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:16:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

<Snip>.....

Wrong, emancipation of a fetus would mean removing control of the
parent,
which would effectively make abortion illegal, since legal
abortion
depends on control being granted to the mother.

Actually, it would make abortion mandatory, since the parental
control
of
a fetus involves food and oxygen supply.

Nope, supporting a fetus in utero is an involuntary biological
function.
Giving up control over the fetus EQUALS losing the right to have a
abortion.
You KNOW this.

So once again:

So once again, you're wrong. Pro-life is essentially an emancipation
movement for the unborn.

Based on the countless posts I've seen over the years, pro-life
represents a ~religious~ movement. I am aware of several clinics
that perform abortions (among other services) and have ALWAYS
seen signs of protest that invoke God and or Jesus to substantiate
their narrow-minded position on the subject.

How is the pro-life position any more narrow than the pro-choice
position?
It appears to me that both views are about the same width.

The pro-life side wants to control the lives of women by forcing them
to produce babies, as opposed to allowing them to make their
own decisions regarding childbirth. Once a child is born however, the
pro-life side will not give one dime in support of raising the baby.
Their position is based on religious dogma for the most part, and
lacks compassion and tolerance. It's all about control, and trying to
force their will on others.

That is a common pro-choice fallacy. Pro-life is fundamentally about
protecting the lives of healthy fetuses. The fact that it *requires*
something of women is incidental, not primary to it.

Stating fact is hardly a "fallacy". If they cared so much about
"protecting the lives of healthy fetuses", why is it that no one
on the pro-life side is willing to take the extra step and offer
financial help to individual women who are coerced by them to
continue their pregnancy to full term? Once a baby is produced,
the pro-life side abruptly vanishes and the woman is left alone
to fend for herself in many instances.

That's an extension of that same fallacy. Pro-life advocates are defending
the right of fetuses to be held safe from assault, not offering to support
them financially. I don't want parents to kill their children either, that
doesn't oblige me to pay their school tuition.

Abortion is legal,

In most places and under the right conditions that is true, but it's a
non-sequitur. Your "they don't pay the bills" argument is a bogus one.

and it's about the rights of the pregnant woman
not the fetus.

It *is* about the fetus also, the fetus is what is being destroyed.

It's interesting that the pro-life side has more
compassion for the yet-born, than it does for children that are
already born. After all, tens of thousands of children die everyda
of the year from starvation and disease around the world, but you
never hear a word from them about that.

I don't find that argument interesting or compelling in any way except that
it demonstrates the desperation of some pro-choice advocates to change the
subject. For one thing you have no data to support the claim that pro-life
advocates don't spend time or money supporting those other causes.

The pro-choice side is based on freedom to allow another to choose
where and when to reproduce. There is no way to know why one
chooses to abort. It could be financial, fear of parents, immaturity,
failed birth control, health reasons, age, etc.

Unlike pro-life (anti-choice) I don't tell people how to live their
lives, and neither should they.

You support laws against child abuse don't you? Doesn't that mean you
are
interfering in private family matters of people you don't even know?

Apples and oranges Dutch. Child abuse and abortion are completely
different topics.

That's no answer. You said, "I don't tell people how to live their lives,
and neither should they." There's nothing issue-specific in that
pronouncement. You might have said, 'I don't tell women they can't have
abortions and neither should you' but you didn't, because in that more
applicable form it is obviously just begging the question, whereas in the
generalized way you said it, it serves your purpose to paint pro-lifers as
meddlers in other people's business. It was just a weak tactic to distract
attention away from the issue and attempt to place your opponents in in a
bad light. It's two-bit sophistry.

The topic and issue is abortion. I didn't think it was necessary to
spell out something to you that we are specifically talking about.
It was you that brought up irrelevant analogies such as "child abuse"
and "school tuition", which have nothing to do with the subject at
hand. Pro-lifers DO "meddle in other people's business" when it comes
to abortion. The subject we're talking about... but you already knew
that didn't you?

We *all* "meddle in other people's business" when we deem it necessary. Our
whole legal and social structure is about meddling, prohibiting and
discouraging people from doing certain things. Saying that arguing against
abortion is "meddling" is not a valid argument against it. If you are
interested in being a useful pro-choice advocate you should find some real
arguments.