What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?

Religions > Atheism > What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	25 Feb 2006 06:56:12 AM
Object:	What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine35&item=1109664037
Abortion: A Modern Holocaust?
By Douglas S. Winnail
Every year, millions of unborn babies are being murdered in their
mothers' wombs. What does today's widespread acceptance of abortion
tell us about ourselves, and about our modern society? What will be the
future of a world where abortion becomes routine? You need to know!
In the last 40 years, the subject of abortion has erupted on the
world stage and provoked international controversy-polarizing people,
dividing countries and setting churches against states. Zealous
supporters of abortion, calling themselves "pro-choice," debate and
demonstrate with passion and zeal, countered by equally zealous
opponents of abortion, calling themselves "pro-life." Confrontations
between these two perspectives are often emotional and bitter,
sometimes becoming violent-or even fatal! Battle lines have been
drawn. One observer noted that "few issues have more thoroughly
fragmented contemporary society" (The Ethics of Abortion, Baird &
Rosenbaum, p. 7).
To understand this emotion-charged issue, it is helpful to know
why abortion has emerged as such a controversial topic in our time, and
to recognize what is ultimately at stake. Even more important is the
question: where is the acceptance of abortion leading our society?
Why has abortion become a controversial issue in many countries of
the world today? For centuries, abortion was scorned or forbidden in
many countries around the globe. Yet in the last half of the 20th
century, abortion was not merely accepted-it was embraced! With the
declining influence of Judeo-Christian values, and the resulting
rejection of biblical morality, many turned to permissive sexual
behavior, and "reproductive rights" became a rallying cry as women
abandoned traditional gender roles and sexually promiscuous men sought
pleasure without any regard for the consequences. Simultaneously, amid
fears of global overpopulation, governments began to subsidize-and
sometimes even to require, as in China-abortion as a means of "birth
control."
More than in most countries, the United States is divided on the
issue of abortion, as many still respect biblical standards of
morality. In Europe, abortion is a far less volatile issue, as only
about 10 percent of the population attends church services regularly,
compared to nearly half in the U.S.
A Global Concern
In the U.S., pro-life activists are motivated by the magnitude of
the abortion problem, yet the problem is even greater worldwide. Since
the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion with the Roe v. Wade decision
in 1973, approximately 1.5 million abortions have been done every
year-for a total of more than 40 million young lives snuffed out!
More than six million babies have been killed in Britain since abortion
was legalized there in 1967. In the former Soviet Union and East Bloc
countries, the majority of pregnancies are terminated by abortion. In
China, where abortion was legalized in 1957, more than 100 million
abortions have occurred in the last four decades. In 1979, China
adopted a "one child" policy, severely restricting most parents'
opportunity to have a second child. With the development of ultrasound
technology (through which parents can learn the gender of a child in
the womb) has come the phenomenon of "sex-selective" abortions, in
which families restricted to one child will kill their unborn daughters
so that they can have a boy. Not surprisingly, observers note that the
current generation of young urban Chinese includes noticeably more men
than women!
In many countries-especially across Africa and Latin
America-abortions are routinely done under conditions so unsafe that
the mother is at grave risk of complications and suffering, or even
death.
Around the world, it is estimated that between 40 and 50 million
abortions occur annually (see The Abortion Debate, Kulczycki, p. 5).
This means that about one in every four pregnancies are ended by
induced abortion-poisoned, dismembered or suctioned out and
discarded!
In Germany, during World War II, Adolf Hitler's Nazi movement
killed an estimated six million Jews in what has become known as the
Holocaust. After the war, those responsible for this barbaric act of
cruelty were tried and convicted of crimes against humanity, and a
morally outraged world saw them hanged for their crimes. Today,
however, tens of millions of unborn babies die every year-many in the
very same nations that sat in judgment at Nuremburg.
It is no wonder that many today call widespread abortion a modern
holocaust. The mass murder of unborn babies, legal and socially
acceptable in our modern nations, has exceeded by far the numbers
killed in Germany under the Nazis, in Russia under Stalin, in China
under Mao Zedong and in Cambodia under Pol Pot-yet few today are
shocked or outraged! In fact, those who speak out against abortion are
commonly labeled as backward and right-wing religious fanatics.
Clouded by Arguments
But how did we reach a point where modern, educated people-with
a heritage of Christian values that regard abortion as illegal and
immoral-now accept and even demand that abortion be recognized as a
legal right? The answer lies in the arguments used by pro-abortionists,
which cloud the real issues at the heart of the controversy. When
examined closely, these arguments-though labeled "intellectual" and
"progressive"-are revealed as shallow and one-sided, willfully
ignoring basic facts of biology.
Pro-abortionists commonly argue that in the early stages of
pregnancy a developing embryo is not really a human life, as it is only
a "blob of tissue" that looks more like a tadpole than a human being.
In fact, however, this differentiating collection of cells is
developing in a way that will never result in a tadpole, or a tree or a
monkey! By 10 to 12 weeks, this little individual will have a
recognizable human face, arms, hands and fingers, legs, feet and toes.
It appears to smile and suck its thumb, and it even responds to sounds!
It is a miniature human being. Just because it does not appear human in
the early weeks of development does not make it a "sub-human" creature!
Pro-abortionists like to cloud the issue of when life begins. They
have argued that life does not begin until movement is felt, or the
first breath is drawn, or until the fetus is viable on its own, to
justify that abortion before these milestones is not really taking a
human life. However, the biological fact is that life begins at the
moment of conception. From that point, every cell in the developing
embryo contains the exact number of chromosomes and all the genetic
material that distinguishes this new human being from its parents. Some
say that the fetus is just an organ-a part of the mother's body
like the appendix or a hangnail-and that it is up to the mother to
decide if she wants it removed. However, from conception a fetus has a
different genetic makeup from any organ in the mother's body.
Terminating this life by abortion takes the life of a genetically
unique individual. Biologically, it is impossible to draw a line and
say life begins at any other point than at conception. The fetus moves
in the womb weeks before the mother feels any movement. While a fetus
cannot survive on its own outside the mother's body, neither can a
baby survive on its own after it is born! It must also be fed, nurtured
and cared for by others for years before it can survive on its own.
Pro-abortionists have suggested that legal abortions, by reducing
the number of "unwanted" pregnancies, reduce the incidence of child
abuse since every child born will be wanted and loved. However, since
abortion became legal, the incidence of child abuse has increased!
The argument that abortion must be legal in order to provide for
cases of rape, incest or detectable birth defects ignores the fact that
these reasons account for only a small fraction of abortions occurring
today (see chart). Many abortions occur among sexually active
adolescents for purely personal (and often selfish) reasons (Kulczycki,
p. 1). Abortions on demand-"killing for convenience"-are frequently
requested to avoid the responsibilities or embarrassment of unwanted
conceptions (Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork, p. l80).
Noted jurist Robert Bork points out that the U.S. Supreme
Court's Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion, was viewed by
feminists as a "landmark on women's march to equality... the issue
had nothing to do with the humanity of the fetus but was entirely about
women's freedom" (Bork, p. 183). The pro-abortion argument likes to
focus on a woman's rights-unless the woman is in her mother's
womb!
Historical Perspectives
Supporters of abortion rarely consider the lessons of history. In
ancient pagan Greece and Rome, unwanted infants were exposed to the
elements and left to die. Abortion was an accepted practice, and a
variety of methods were available. Plato and Aristotle advocated
abortion to limit family size. Although Roman law was pro-family, it
was not anti-abortion. The decline of Rome saw an increase of crime,
promiscuity-and abortion. Christianity, by contrast, forbade murder
and taught that life was sacred, challenging pagan values and bringing
about what some have called the "first abortion war" (see Christianity
Today, October 6, 1989). This clash between Christian and pagan values
(visible not only in Scripture, but in the early Church Fathers) shaped
the anti-abortion attitudes of Western civilization for centuries.
Another "abortion war" erupted in the 1850s, when across the U.S.
abortion began to gain new popularity, spurred by new values shaped by
the Industrial Revolution. Medical doctors, however, backed restrictive
laws to curtail abortions by unqualified practitioners, which also had
the effect of limiting competition.
In the 1930s, Nazi Germany passed laws making it legal to kill the
old and infirm. This principle was later extended to allow the murder
of Jews, gypsies and other "unwanted" members of society. Nazi Germany
actually restricted abortion, however, of those whose genetics were
considered socially desirable.
It was not until the middle of the 20th century that the "abortion
wars" reached their zenith. In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. and U.K.
followed the examples set by China and the Soviet Union, legalizing
abortion. Centuries-old value systems were now being replaced by
ancient pagan values of life in many nominally "Christian" nations
around the world.
Fifty years ago, decent people were outraged to learn that Nazi
doctors had experimented on living human beings for "scientific"
purposes, and had harvested body parts for commercial use. Today, few
are concerned that human tissue from aborted fetuses is even used in
making face creams! How society has changed! Since abortion and
euthanasia were legalized in Holland, estimates suggest that 8 percent
of infants who die each year in the Netherlands are killed by doctors!
One observer commented that "it took the Dutch almost 30 years for
their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are
able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some
German doctors hanged after Nuremberg."
The Biblical Dimension
The historical dimension of the abortion controversy is sobering.
But what about the moral question? Is abortion right or wrong? What
does the Bible say?
The Apostle Paul wrote: "But if anyone does not provide for his
own [family]... he has denied the faith" (1 Timothy 5:8). Would anyone
argue that a Christian can provide for a family member by killing him?
Remember: one of the Ten Commandments specifically condemns murder
(Exodus 20:13). In other words, any birth control method that induces
abortion is wrong.
Moses warned the Israelites not to practice the wicked customs of
their Canaanite neighbors-which included infanticide-the killing of
children. He instructed: "You shall not learn to follow the
abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you
anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire... for they
burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods"
(Deuteronomy 18:9-14; 12:31).
King David described that the Israelites angered God because they
"sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons [false gods], and shed
innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters" (Psalms
106:32-39). The prophet Ezekiel thundered God's warning that,
having forgotten God, they had "slain My children... blood is on their
hands. They have... sacrificed their sons whom they have born to Me,
passing them through the fire, to devour them" (Ezekiel 16:21; 23:37).
In direct defiance of God's instructions, ancient Israel had
adopted barbaric pagan practices of child killing! In response, the
prophet Jeremiah warned: "Also on your skirts is found the blood of the
lives of the poor innocents... Behold, I will bring such a catastrophe
on this place, that whoever hears of it, his ears will tingle, because
they have forsaken Me... therefore behold, the days are coming, says
the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet or the Valley
of the Son of Hinnom [where children were sacrificed], but the Valley
of Slaughter [when God uses foreign nations to punish His people for
killing their own children]" (see Jeremiah 2:34; 19:3-7). These
passages reveal how God views the slaughter of children, whether they
are infants or unborn babies!
Modern "ethicists" like Peter Singer of Princeton University have
offered arguments that an unborn fetus is less than human. This idea is
not new; it was common to many ancient pagan philosophers as well.
However, this approach is clearly refuted in the Bible. God told
Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were
born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations"
(Jeremiah 1:5). An angel told Zacharias, father of John the Baptist,
that John would "also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his
mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). The Bible reveals that God regards unborn
babies as human beings, and that killing human infants, born or unborn,
will incur the wrath of Almighty God! Our modern secular society has
forgotten these powerful warnings!
A Sobering Future
But where is the drive to legalize abortion leading modern
nations? What is the acceptance of abortion doing to our societies?
Judge Robert Bork calls the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade
decision, which legalized abortion, an attempt by liberal secular
elites to impose their values on the rest of the nation (see Bork, p.
174). He observes: "Abortion has coarsened us" and it reflects "the
brutalization of our culture" (ibid., p. 182). He states: "The
systematic killing of unborn children in huge numbers is part of a
general disregard for human life that has been growing for some time.
Abortion... deepens and legitimates the nihilism [disregard for
traditional values] that is spreading in our culture and finds killing
for convenience acceptable" (ibid, p. 192).
British social critic Peter Hitchens makes a similar observation,
that abortion "corrupts any society which freely permits it. The idea
that innocent life may be lawfully ended for the convenience of others
or for the alleged good of society, once generally accepted, devastates
the rule of law itself" (The Spectator, August 7, 2004). British
columnist Bruce Anderson comments: "Over the last 40 years, the
abortion clinic has become an indispensable part of the life-support
system of the permissive society. The unrestricted enjoyment of sexual
license requires not only contraception but retroactive contraception
[abortion]" (The Spectator, July 17, 2004).
Even those who try to frame the debate in terms of "reproductive
rights" cannot honestly deny the negative social trends that have
accompanied the acceptance of abortion. They can only say that in their
value system, these negative trends are a price worth paying.
Ultimately, two questions are involved-whose values will prevail, and
who will control society? Dr. Andrzej Kulczycki, a United Nations
consultant, has observed that "the debate about abortion reflects a
conflict over who runs society"-social liberals or religious and
social conservatives-"their disagreements reflect very different
understandings of the fetus, of the woman, and indeed of how the world
should be structured" (The Abortion Debate, Kulczycki, pp. 157, 18).
These conflicting views are at the heart of the bitter cultural wars
that are polarizing people and dividing nations today.
It is significant that abortion is now widely accepted in many
cultures that historically called themselves "Christian." Bible
prophecy warns that "in the last days" people will be "lovers of
themselves [focused on their own rights and desires to the exclusion of
concern for others]... unloving [callous and without natural
affection-mothers for their own children]... brutal" (2 Timothy
3:1-5). These prophecies accurately describe our world today, yet
these trends will grow far worse in years to come. Thankfully, the
return of Jesus Christ will soon usher in the Kingdom of God, and bring
about a return to biblical values that will include "turning the hearts
of the fathers [and mothers] to their children." Then, finally, the
tragic modern holocaust of abortion will become a thing of the past!
Children of Carthage
Today's nations should learn a grim lesson from the way children
were treated in ancient Carthage, and from the fate that befell the
city. In 300BC, Carthage was the center of a rich trading empire, and
was a rival of Rome. Its citizens were wealthy, cultured and educated,
yet remarkably callous about taking human life. Unwanted orphans and
widows were killed "to reduce the amount of poverty and suffering in
the city" ( When Nations Die, Black, p. 164). Carthaginians burned
thousands of their own children to appease their patron goddess, Tanet.
Ancient writers report that frequent public sacrifices "took place in
front of a bronze statue of the god, with arms outstretched over a
blazing fire; the child slid down over the arms and fell" into the
flames ( The Phoenicians and the West, Aubet, p. 211). The necropolis
at Carthage contains more than 20,000 urns with charred remains of
infants and children. This gruesome practice finally ended when the
Romans besieged and destroyed Carthage in 146BC.
Historian Jim Nelson Black wondered how the murder of unborn
children in modern societies is any different from the murder of
children in ancient Carthage? He asked: "Isn't the rite of abortion
our culture's sacrifice to the gods of materialism and greed? The
Phoenicians killed many thousands of children... But in the entire
history of Carthage or of Rome, they never killed 30 million in the
name of "a woman's right to control her own body" (Black, p.
166).
The media lavished much attention on the famous Roman Catholic
nun, Mother Teresa, but only infrequently reported her stinging rebukes
of contemporary society. Mother Teresa likened abortion to "a war
against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by
the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her
own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?... Any
country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but
to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest
destroyer of peace and love is abortion" ( ibid., pp. 214-215).
Carthage continued its barbaric practice of murdering children
until the day it was destroyed. Will our society today, which permits
far greater evil, do the same?
-Douglas S. Winnail
Killing For Convenience
Reasons Given for Abortion:
Having a baby will change my life 76%
Cannot afford a baby now 68%
Want to avoid single parenthood 51%
Unready for responsibility 31%
Don't want others to know of pregnancy 31%
Not mature enough to have a child 30%
Fetus has a health problem 7%
Woman was victim of rape or incest 1%
(Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988, pp. 169-170)
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 04:30:33 PM

Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44025ff4$0$58112$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

"Craig Chilton -- IMPEACH Perfidious Bush... NOW!!" <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

ROTFL!!!!

Oh shut the ***** up you lunatic.

Is that another example of your well-reasoned arguments?

No, you can find plenty of those elsewhere,

I don't see ANY well-reasoned arguments from you. All I see are
outright lies and your insistence that your every claim should be
accepted without question.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	01 Mar 2006 03:45:56 AM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote

I don't see ANY well-reasoned arguments from you.

Then you are simply ignoring them.
.

User: "BOB"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	01 Mar 2006 10:49:16 AM

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:120araqnocvh085@news.supernews.com:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote

I don't see ANY well-reasoned arguments from you.

Then you are simply ignoring them.

How does he ingore something that doesn't exist, Douche?

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	01 Mar 2006 11:33:14 AM

Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote

I don't see ANY well-reasoned arguments from you.

Then you are simply ignoring them.

Or, more likely, they do not exist.
Arguments based upon false premises and untruths are never any good.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	26 Feb 2006 03:02:20 PM

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

You are good at typing Latin phrases. Too bad you don't have any
intelligence or common sense. (I know, ad hominem) What's the Latin
for accusing readers of running away from debate by engaging in
fallacies? Ad Hominfullofshitum?
Sunyata
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	26 Feb 2006 06:36:35 AM

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.
Haven't you learned that yet?
Abortion is not murder. To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.
Fetuses are not people. To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.
Pointing out that an argument is self-refuting is not 'argumentum ad
definitum', it is simply pointing out the obvious - that the argument
made is fallacious. If you don't like it then stop encouraging people
to present fallacious arguments.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	26 Feb 2006 04:56:49 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

Abortion is not murder. To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No. Murder isn't an objective term.
Some cultures would say that the King cannot commit murder, for instance,
because murder is an offence against the King's peace.

Fetuses are not people. To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

I tend to agree. But newly born babies aren't "people" either. Many cultures
use a different word for a member of their own tribe, and foreigners. Often
the word for their own tribe translates roughly as "people".

Pointing out that an argument is self-refuting is not 'argumentum ad
definitum', it is simply pointing out the obvious - that the argument
made is fallacious. If you don't like it then stop encouraging people
to present fallacious arguments.

It is not a self-refuting argument to say that "abortion is murder". You
are making the fallacy of arguing about how words should be defined rather
than engaging with the actual issues.
That is not to say that you don't have every right to say that you
personally don't think the term "murder" is appropriate when the victim is a
fetus. You just shouldn't assume that you have delivered a knock out blow.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	26 Feb 2006 06:22:51 PM

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dttbng$3ei$10@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

Abortion is not murder. To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No. Murder isn't an objective term.
Some cultures would say that the King cannot commit murder, for instance,
because murder is an offence against the King's peace.

Fetuses are not people. To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

I tend to agree. But newly born babies aren't "people" either. Many
cultures use a different word for a member of their own tribe, and
foreigners. Often the word for their own tribe translates roughly as
"people".

It is not a self-refuting argument to say that "abortion is murder". You
are making the fallacy of arguing about how words should be defined rather
than engaging with the actual issues.
That is not to say that you don't have every right to say that you
personally don't think the term "murder" is appropriate when the victim is
a fetus. You just shouldn't assume that you have delivered a knock out
blow.

The pro-choice goon squad view all their half-baked arguments, quibbles and
fallacies as knockout blows.
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	26 Feb 2006 06:02:21 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Abortion is not murder.

So what? If he used the word "killed" you would quibble about some other
word, in fact you do.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No it doesn't. Using that term merely reveals the intensity of his feelings
about the issue. Nobody is claiming that killing a fetus by abortion is
*legally* defined as murder in most cases.

Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitium. To some people they are. In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and plausible.
Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument why
someone should *not* see them as people.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

What a steaming load of crap. You can't make a coherent case so you run away
and hide, claiming a win by default by crying definition fouls.
.

User: "Adam H"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	26 Feb 2006 07:01:06 PM

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong. But refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods is
apparently something that you can't support. I notice that's common
amongst those who don't have facts on their side.

Abortion is not murder.

So what? If he used the word "killed" you would quibble about some other
word, in fact you do.

Who's indulging in falsehoods now? You.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No it doesn't. Using that term merely reveals the intensity of his feelings
about the issue. Nobody is claiming that killing a fetus by abortion is
*legally* defined as murder in most cases.

Actually, many are. That's shown by the lack of admitting the facts.

Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitium.

No, factual argument, and also one of the primary issues. Your
inability to refute the fact is obvious.

To some people they are.

And to some leprechauns and pixies are real, but that doesn't make it
a fact, does it?

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and plausible.

Nope.

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument why
someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

What a steaming load of crap. You can't make a coherent case so you run away
and hide, claiming a win by default by crying definition fouls.

No, merely by showing that refusal to admit facts invalidates the
'argument'. You're the one telling falsehoods and then trying to dress
them up.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 05:41:17 AM

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:lhj402pmjiesluekjpg2j98v4hqkgio9qg@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Abortion is not murder.

So what? If he used the word "killed" you would quibble about some other
word, in fact you do.

Who's indulging in falsehoods now? You.

What?

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No it doesn't. Using that term merely reveals the intensity of his
feelings
about the issue. Nobody is claiming that killing a fetus by abortion is
*legally* defined as murder in most cases.

Actually, many are. That's shown by the lack of admitting the facts.

Prove it.

Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitium.

No, factual argument, and also one of the primary issues.

It's a *WORD* for ***** sakes man.

Your
inability to refute the fact is obvious.

It's not a FACT dingbat, it's an abstraction, a word, a classification.

To some people they are.

And to some leprechauns and pixies are real, but that doesn't make it
a fact, does it?

Oh *****.. have I run into your brand of lunacy before..

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and plausible.

Nope.

ABSOLUTELY, man give you head a shake!

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument why
someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

That's it?? I'd saying being an offspring of human parents with the
potential to be a rocket scientist is a pretty reasonable standard.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

What a steaming load of crap. You can't make a coherent case so you run
away
and hide, claiming a win by default by crying definition fouls.

No,

Yes
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 04:29:35 PM

Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:lhj402pmjiesluekjpg2j98v4hqkgio9qg@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Which is why we see YOU snip and run, we see YOU refuse to supply
evidence, we see YOU resort to outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Adam H"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 06:14:57 AM

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:41:17 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:lhj402pmjiesluekjpg2j98v4hqkgio9qg@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong. You repeating it doesn't make it so.
Refusing to let you perpetuate falsehoods isn't refusing the debate -
to say that it is only demonstrates that you have nothing worthwhile
to bring. When you can bring something to the table that isn't
immediately shown to be false, it can be taken further.

Abortion is not murder.

So what? If he used the word "killed" you would quibble about some other
word, in fact you do.

Who's indulging in falsehoods now? You.

What?

I said that you are indulging in falsehoods.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No it doesn't. Using that term merely reveals the intensity of his
feelings
about the issue. Nobody is claiming that killing a fetus by abortion is
*legally* defined as murder in most cases.

Actually, many are. That's shown by the lack of admitting the facts.

Prove it.

Prove what? That many won't admit that fetuses aren't people, or that
abortion isn't murder? Read some newsgroups.

Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitium.

No, factual argument, and also one of the primary issues.

It's a *WORD* for ***** sakes man.

And the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus is a primary issue.

Your
inability to refute the fact is obvious.

It's not a FACT dingbat, it's an abstraction, a word, a classification.

No, it is a FACT that fetuses are not people, moron.

To some people they are.

And to some leprechauns and pixies are real, but that doesn't make it
a fact, does it?

Oh *****.. have I run into your brand of lunacy before..

Can you answer the question?

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and plausible.

Nope.

ABSOLUTELY, man give you head a shake!

No. No, it is not a reasonable position.
You don't have partial personhood, and you don't have personhood when
it comes at the expense of an actual person's rights.

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument why
someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

That's it?? I'd saying being an offspring of human parents with the
potential to be a rocket scientist is a pretty reasonable standard.

And you'd be wrong.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

What a steaming load of crap. You can't make a coherent case so you run
away
and hide, claiming a win by default by crying definition fouls.

No,

Yes

More forging from Dutch. It sure didn't take long to reach the end of
your ability to respond even semi-coherently.
Claiming a lie in your case invalidates your case.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 07:19:06 AM

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:otq5021mud915lajblfp58hcbah8odn8ij@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:41:17 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:lhj402pmjiesluekjpg2j98v4hqkgio9qg@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute
you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

No, right. All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

You repeating it doesn't make it so.

I didn't say it did. It was right the first time.

Refusing to let you perpetuate falsehoods isn't refusing the debate -

I haven't acknowledged that a falsehood took place.

to say that it is only demonstrates that you have nothing worthwhile
to bring.

You're refusing to engage again.

When you can bring something to the table that isn't
immediately shown to be false, it can be taken further.

First, it wasn't my quote..
I offered to replace the word "murder" which was technically incorrect and
inflammatory with "kill", so what?? We all know what an abortion is, we all
know what the legal status of abortion is, we know he meant, to cry foul and
fold your tent because someone uses a term you don't approve of is refusing
in engage in the debate, period. Don't give me this high and mighty crap.

Abortion is not murder.

So what? If he used the word "killed" you would quibble about some other
word, in fact you do.

Who's indulging in falsehoods now? You.

What?

I said that you are indulging in falsehoods.

I got that, I meant what falsehoods? You quibbled and folded your tent when
the word murder was used. You should have addressed what he *meant*, not
quibbled about the words he used.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No it doesn't. Using that term merely reveals the intensity of his
feelings
about the issue. Nobody is claiming that killing a fetus by abortion is
*legally* defined as murder in most cases.

Actually, many are. That's shown by the lack of admitting the facts.

Prove it.

Prove what? That many won't admit that fetuses aren't people,

You're missing the whole point of this issue. As far as definitions or
membership in a classification like "people" is concerned, it is whatever
we collectively say it is. They are OUR words. If a sufficient number of
people decide that they believe that fetuses belong in the group "people",
then fetuses WILL officially be called people. Right now, I agree fetuses
probably do not by and large fall into that group, but it doesn't really
matter. What matters is what voting people, especially judges, believe to be
true, what they believe to be right, and what they rule in law in the
future. THAT is what needs to be discussed.

or that
abortion isn't murder? Read some newsgroups.

Abortion is legal.

Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitium.

No, factual argument, and also one of the primary issues.

It's a *WORD* for ***** sakes man.

And the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus is a primary issue.

The issue under discussion ought to be *should* fetuses be classed as
people, or given protection equivalent to people.

Your
inability to refute the fact is obvious.

It's not a FACT dingbat, it's an abstraction, a word, a classification.

No, it is a FACT that fetuses are not people, moron.

Words are not facts Adam. Words are always changing, facts do not.

To some people they are.

And to some leprechauns and pixies are real, but that doesn't make it
a fact, does it?

Oh *****.. have I run into your brand of lunacy before..

Can you answer the question?

I gave the answer above. A sizeable number of people already *believe* that
fetuses ARE people, OR deserve equal protection as people. If that number
becomes great and significant enough, then it WILL become a fact, and you
WILL be compelled to include them whether you like it or not. Pixies were a
stupid diversionary reference.

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and
plausible.

Nope.

ABSOLUTELY, man give you head a shake!

No. No, it is not a reasonable position.

Yes it is a reasonable position! I'm not in agreement with it, but it's
plausible.

You don't have partial personhood,

You have infancy with only fundamental rights.

and you don't have personhood when
it comes at the expense of an actual person's rights.

All individual rights exist at the expense of freedoms of others. I may be a
homicidal maniac but my freedom to indulge that tendency is limited by
others' rights.

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument why
someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

That's it?? I'd saying being an offspring of human parents with the
potential to be a rocket scientist is a pretty reasonable standard.

And you'd be wrong.

What's wrong with it?

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

What a steaming load of crap. You can't make a coherent case so you run
away
and hide, claiming a win by default by crying definition fouls.

No,

Yes

More forging from Dutch.

No forging, stop lying. And you ARE attempting to declare victory by
definition.
IT WON'T WORK. You'll be steamrolled along with the pro-choice goon squad.

It sure didn't take long to reach the end of
your ability to respond even semi-coherently.

***** and die. Hows that for semi-coherence?

Claiming a lie in your case invalidates your case.

Blah blah, I remember your ***** from before.
.

User: "Adam H"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 07:41:12 AM

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:19:06 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:otq5021mud915lajblfp58hcbah8odn8ij@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:41:17 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:lhj402pmjiesluekjpg2j98v4hqkgio9qg@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:m08302t1i3b7adk41b1j8ro8p55iq2ue5r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:41:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46bri4Fa57ulU2@individual.net...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

D.O.A. The minute someone presumes abortion is murder, the minute
you
know
you have a crackpot.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Schmuck! Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitum.

You are running away from this debate by engaging in fallacies.

No, moron. He's refusing to let the debate be framed with falsehoods.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

Wrong.

No, right. All of you are refusing in engage in the debate, period.

You repeating it doesn't make it so.

I didn't say it did. It was right the first time.

No, it wasn't. What is right is that pointing out falsehoods and
refusing to accept them is not refusing debate.

Refusing to let you perpetuate falsehoods isn't refusing the debate -

I haven't acknowledged that a falsehood took place.

I don't care, actually. I have shown you where it did, previously.

to say that it is only demonstrates that you have nothing worthwhile
to bring.

You're refusing to engage again.

There is nothing to engage when you refuse to work in the realm of
facts.

When you can bring something to the table that isn't
immediately shown to be false, it can be taken further.

First, it wasn't my quote..

I offered to replace the word "murder" which was technically incorrect and
inflammatory with "kill", so what?? We all know what an abortion is, we all
know what the legal status of abortion is, we know he meant, to cry foul and
fold your tent because someone uses a term you don't approve of is refusing
in engage in the debate, period. Don't give me this high and mighty crap.

Ah, more strawmen from you. When do you think you might be able to
understand that I don't 'engage' falsehoods? I point them out and
refuse them.

Abortion is not murder.

So what? If he used the word "killed" you would quibble about some other
word, in fact you do.

Who's indulging in falsehoods now? You.

What?

I said that you are indulging in falsehoods.

I got that, I meant what falsehoods? You quibbled and folded your tent when
the word murder was used. You should have addressed what he *meant*, not
quibbled about the words he used.

Your falsehoods include the strawman arguments you have brought up in
this thread and your statement above about what you say I'll do in
some hypothetical situation.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

No it doesn't. Using that term merely reveals the intensity of his
feelings
about the issue. Nobody is claiming that killing a fetus by abortion is
*legally* defined as murder in most cases.

Actually, many are. That's shown by the lack of admitting the facts.

Prove it.

Prove what? That many won't admit that fetuses aren't people,

And? That doesn't change the present situation, and it doesn't make me
inclined to accept any claims based on falsehoods because those
falsehood may become fact at some fuzzy future date.

or that
abortion isn't murder? Read some newsgroups.

Abortion is legal.

Non-sequitur. The fact that it's legal doesn't change the other fact
that there are many who maintain that abortion is murder and refuse to
accept facts.

Fetuses are not people.

Argumentum ad definitium.

No, factual argument, and also one of the primary issues.

It's a *WORD* for ***** sakes man.

And the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus is a primary issue.

The issue under discussion ought to be *should* fetuses be classed as
people, or given protection equivalent to people.

Yes, that's what I said.

Your
inability to refute the fact is obvious.

It's not a FACT dingbat, it's an abstraction, a word, a classification.

No, it is a FACT that fetuses are not people, moron.

Words are not facts Adam. Words are always changing, facts do not.

And yet it is a FACT that at the time of my writing this, fetuses are
not people. Got it yet?

To some people they are.

And to some leprechauns and pixies are real, but that doesn't make it
a fact, does it?

Oh *****.. have I run into your brand of lunacy before..

Can you answer the question?

Uh, no. It was a demonstration that you have utterly failed to get.
What people *believe* isn't always a fact.

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and
plausible.

Nope.

ABSOLUTELY, man give you head a shake!

No. No, it is not a reasonable position.

Yes it is a reasonable position! I'm not in agreement with it, but it's
plausible.

No, it's not a reasonable position.
See, that's what's called an 'opinion', backed up below.

You don't have partial personhood,

You have infancy with only fundamental rights.

Another non-sequitur. Are infants 'partial' people? No? Then move on.

and you don't have personhood when
it comes at the expense of an actual person's rights.

All individual rights exist at the expense of freedoms of others. I may be a
homicidal maniac but my freedom to indulge that tendency is limited by
others' rights.

You need to demonstrate how the recognition of my personhood limits
your rights.
There is no 'right' to murder, so we'll just dismiss your little
diversion.

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument why
someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

That's it?? I'd saying being an offspring of human parents with the
potential to be a rocket scientist is a pretty reasonable standard.

And you'd be wrong.

What's wrong with it?

It's not reasonable.
'Potential' is not a reasonable criteria.

To state otherwise is a falsehood, and so
using rhetoric of that sort immediately discredits your argument.

What a steaming load of crap. You can't make a coherent case so you run
away
and hide, claiming a win by default by crying definition fouls.

No,

Yes

More forging from Dutch.

No forging, stop lying.

You are attempting to change the appearance of what I wrote and
failing to show those changes. That's forgery.

And you ARE attempting to declare victory by
definition.

Nope. I'm demonstrating falsehoods in someone's statements and ending
that line of discussion by doing so. When they correct those
falsehoods the discussion can continue.

IT WON'T WORK. You'll be steamrolled along with the pro-choice goon squad.

No, I'm saying that the discussion ends at the introduction of
falsehoods. If you don't like that then tell people to stop framing
the debate with lies, instead of bitching at the people who won't
accept the lies. Your claims about my position are wrong, and so are
rejected.

It sure didn't take long to reach the end of
your ability to respond even semi-coherently.

***** and die. Hows that for semi-coherence?

Just about at the intellectual level you've led us to expect from you.

Claiming a lie in your case invalidates your case.

Blah blah, I remember your ***** from before.

And I remember yours. I see that you're still unable to respond
without changing the post you're responding to. It demonstrates the
essential weakness of your reasoning.
Now, are you capable of responding without making up a strawman to
attack, or not?
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 04:48:14 PM

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:19:06 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Words are not facts Adam. Words are always changing, facts do not.

And yet it is a FACT that at the time of my writing this, fetuses are
not people. Got it yet?

I already conceded that, it is not the key issue here. When statutes declare
that murder includes the killing of a person *or* a fetus, as they already
do, and then they remove the exemption for abortion as was done in South
Dakota, then for all intents and purposes fetuses will have the same
protection as people. Your job is to present a compelling argument why that
should not be happening. Just calling foul and declaring victory by default
when people misuse words is not constructive.
[..]

I gave the answer above. A sizeable number of people already *believe*
that
fetuses ARE people, OR deserve equal protection as people. If that number
becomes great and significant enough, then it WILL become a fact, and you
WILL be compelled to include them whether you like it or not. Pixies were
a
stupid diversionary reference.

Uh, no. It was a demonstration that you have utterly failed to get.
What people *believe* isn't always a fact.

Why would you think that you needed to demonstrate such a trivial point? Of
course not, but this is not a debate about "fact", it is a debate about
perception and values. There is no real disagreement about what a fetus is,
in *fact*, but there is a very clear disagreement about what rights we ought
to assign to fetuses under what circumstances, relative to the mother. Make
a compelling argument to change a pro-lifer's *perception* of pregnancy and
how they *value* the fetus. That's the only way to change the balance of the
argument.

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and
plausible.

Nope.

ABSOLUTELY, man give you head a shake!

No. No, it is not a reasonable position.

Yes it is a reasonable position! I'm not in agreement with it, but it's
plausible.

No, it's not a reasonable position.

Give a reason.

See, that's what's called an 'opinion', backed up below.

OK, fine

You don't have partial personhood,

You have infancy with only fundamental rights.

Another non-sequitur. Are infants 'partial' people? No? Then move on.

You are a frustrating person to debate, mainly because of the constant
condescension and sarcasm.
That is just one more indicator to me that you are mainly interested in
shutting down the debate.

and you don't have personhood when
it comes at the expense of an actual person's rights.

All individual rights exist at the expense of freedoms of others. I may be
a
homicidal maniac but my freedom to indulge that tendency is limited by
others' rights.

You need to demonstrate how the recognition of my personhood limits
your rights.

I am not allowed to kill you, that limits my freedom to kill people
randomly.

There is no 'right' to murder,

There is a presumed "freedom" of action that is curtailed by your right to
not be killed. In the same way that a right assigned to fetuses results in a
restriction against abortion.

so we'll just dismiss your little
diversion.

You bent that point into a sophists knot. You dismissed it, but not validly.
Boundaries on one's *freedoms* delineate the *rights* others hold against
us.

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument

why

someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

That's it?? I'd saying being an offspring of human parents with the
potential to be a rocket scientist is a pretty reasonable standard.

And you'd be wrong.

What's wrong with it?

It's not reasonable.
'Potential' is not a reasonable criteria.

Sure it is. You may be seen as a valued employee and get a great promotion
based on your potential. Everything about life is intertwined with
potential. If you harm me you may be liable for compensation for my future
potential earnings. Even if you kill a person what you are really doing is
taking away the potential future it is assumed they would have otherwise
had. In fact this is the key difference in pro-life vs pro-choice thinking.
To a pro-lifer the potential of the fetus is the most glaring aspect, to a
pro-choicer, this potential is basically ignored. The pro-choice person, to
be successful in this debate, MUST address this difference in perception.
You must make a *compelling* argument to make the pro-lifer have less focus
on the potential future of that fetus. Calling them a religious nut or a
control freak will NOT win the day, neither will simply telling them that
the fetus is not a person. Those are not compelling arguments.
[..]

Now, are you capable of responding without making up a strawman to
attack, or not?

I really would like to have a respectful, civilized discussion with you, so
yes I will make every effort to avoid making strawman arguments. As
entertaining as it is to exchange insults with the goon squad, substance in
the debate is sorely missing.
.

User: "Adam H"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	27 Feb 2006 05:11:19 PM

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:48:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:19:06 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Words are not facts Adam. Words are always changing, facts do not.

And yet it is a FACT that at the time of my writing this, fetuses are
not people. Got it yet?

I already conceded that, it is not the key issue here.

Uh, yes, it is. Fetal personhood is pretty much the primary issue in
the abortion debate.

When statutes declare
that murder includes the killing of a person *or* a fetus, as they already
do, and then they remove the exemption for abortion as was done in South
Dakota, then for all intents and purposes fetuses will have the same
protection as people. Your job is to present a compelling argument why that
should not be happening. Just calling foul and declaring victory by default
when people misuse words is not constructive.

And framing the debate with lies is even less constructive, yet you
have nothing to say about that. It is not my 'job' to present a
compelling argument to you when what is presented to argue against is
a framework of lies, and it is in fact the 'job' of the anti-abortion
crowd to present a narrowly-tailored and compelling argument of why
fetuses should enjoy rights not given to any person.

[..]

I gave the answer above. A sizeable number of people already *believe*
that
fetuses ARE people, OR deserve equal protection as people. If that number
becomes great and significant enough, then it WILL become a fact, and you
WILL be compelled to include them whether you like it or not. Pixies were
a
stupid diversionary reference.

Uh, no. It was a demonstration that you have utterly failed to get.
What people *believe* isn't always a fact.

Why would you think that you needed to demonstrate such a trivial point?

Because you made such a damn stinky deal about it.

Of
course not, but this is not a debate about "fact", it is a debate about
perception and values. There is no real disagreement about what a fetus is,
in *fact*,

Oh, that's funny. That's a very funny and completely untrue statement.

but there is a very clear disagreement about what rights we ought
to assign to fetuses under what circumstances, relative to the mother. Make
a compelling argument to change a pro-lifer's *perception* of pregnancy and
how they *value* the fetus. That's the only way to change the balance of the
argument.

So, pointing out that their perception is based on falsehoods isn't
compelling enough?
If that's the case, then no argument is useful. When someone embraces
those falsehoods it is a waste of my time to do anything more than
point out the untruths.

In fact to see them as
people in an early stage of development is very reasonable and
plausible.

Nope.

ABSOLUTELY, man give you head a shake!

No. No, it is not a reasonable position.

Yes it is a reasonable position! I'm not in agreement with it, but it's
plausible.

No, it's not a reasonable position.

Give a reason.

See, that's what's called an 'opinion', backed up below.

OK, fine

You don't have partial personhood,

You have infancy with only fundamental rights.

Another non-sequitur. Are infants 'partial' people? No? Then move on.

You are a frustrating person to debate, mainly because of the constant
condescension and sarcasm.

Pot, kettle, black. You get what you give.

That is just one more indicator to me that you are mainly interested in
shutting down the debate.

No, it's a refutation. You contradicted my claim that partial
personhood doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't.

and you don't have personhood when
it comes at the expense of an actual person's rights.

All individual rights exist at the expense of freedoms of others. I may be
a
homicidal maniac but my freedom to indulge that tendency is limited by
others' rights.

You need to demonstrate how the recognition of my personhood limits
your rights.

I am not allowed to kill you, that limits my freedom to kill people
randomly.

And how is this violating your rights? Don't move the goalposts.

There is no 'right' to murder,

There is a presumed "freedom" of action that is curtailed by your right to
not be killed. In the same way that a right assigned to fetuses results in a
restriction against abortion.

There is NO presumed freedom to murder people.

so we'll just dismiss your little
diversion.

You bent that point into a sophists knot. You dismissed it, but not validly.
Boundaries on one's *freedoms* delineate the *rights* others hold against
us.

It is a valid dismissal. If you don't like it, present an example that
isn't false. There is not and never has been a presumed 'right' to
murder people.
If you can't demonstrate how the recognition of my personhood violates
your rights just say so. On the other hand, I can and have
demonstrated how recognizing a fetus as a person would violate the
woman's rights.

Instead of burying your head in the sand, give a rational argument

why

someone should *not* see them as people.

Lack of ability to conform to established and reasonable standards of
personhood.

That's it?? I'd saying being an offspring of human parents with the
potential to be a rocket scientist is a pretty reasonable standard.

And you'd be wrong.

What's wrong with it?

It's not reasonable.
'Potential' is not a reasonable criteria.

We are talking about personhood. Potential is not a compelling
argument for recognizing personhood,especially when doing so would
actively deny rights to another person.
People cannot be compelled to donate redundant organs to save
another's life. People can't even be compelled to give blood to save a
person's life. You're going to have to come up with a damn good reason
to justify compelling women to give up control of their own bodies and
requiring them to undergo physical harm to preserve a fetus.
You are putting the onus of argument only on the pro-choice side, but
once the fallacies in anti-abortion argument are exposed, why should
the debate continue? How is an argument based on falsehoods valid?

[..]

Now, are you capable of responding without making up a strawman to
attack, or not?

Uh huh. When you can stop changing what people write, when you stop
dismissing those who disagree as the 'goon squad', and when you stop
claiming that it's justified because someone did it to you, then you
may get somewhere.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: What Will Be The Future Of A World Where Abortion Becomes Routine?	28 Feb 2006 05:03:03 AM

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:3u0702lg7so02uu19d7q6d06vgpmova3ko@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:48:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:19:06 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Words are not facts Adam. Words are always changing, facts do not.

And yet it is a FACT that at the time of my writing this, fetuses are
not people. Got it yet?

I already conceded that, it is not the key issue here.

Uh, yes, it is. Fetal personhood is pretty much the primary issue in
the abortion debate.

It's not the issue at all. You could convince every pro-life advocate in the
world that the fetus is not a person and they can still come along and add
"and fetuses" to the statutes, and remove the exemptions for theraputic
abortion and what will you have accomplished? Pretty hollow victory for
those women wanting abortions.

When statutes declare
that murder includes the killing of a person *or* a fetus, as they already
do, and then they remove the exemption for abortion as was done in South
Dakota, then for all intents and purposes fetuses will have the same
protection as people. Your job is to present a compelling argument why
that
should not be happening. Just calling foul and declaring victory by
default
when people misuse words is not constructive.

And framing the debate with lies is even less constructive, yet you
have nothing to say about that.

You mean calling legal killing "murder"? I already conceded that was
incorrect and inflammatory. What more do you want on that point?

It is not my 'job' to present a
compelling argument to you when what is presented to argue against is
a framework of lies,

I thought you would *want* to present a compelling argument. What other kind
of argument is worth presenting? I assumed that your goal was to have your
point of view prevail.

and it is in fact the 'job' of the anti-abortion
crowd to present a narrowly-tailored and compelling argument of why
fetuses should enjoy rights not given to any person.

The job of the anti-abortion crowd, who perceive fetuses as humans who
deserve a right to exist, is to convince other people, and particularly
legislators to agree with them. They do not need to frame their argument in
pro-choice terms.
[..]

I gave the answer above. A sizeable number of people already *believe*
that
fetuses ARE people, OR deserve equal protection as people. If that
number
becomes great and significant enough, then it WILL become a fact, and
you
WILL be compelled to include them whether you like it or not. Pixies
were
a
stupid diversionary reference.

Uh, no. It was a demonstration that you have utterly failed to get.
What people *believe* isn't always a fact.

Why would you think that you needed to demonstrate such a trivial point?

Because you made such a damn stinky deal about it.

Introducing pixies and unicorns just shows that you don't get what I was
saying. Nobody believes they are real, they aren't the issue. People
*actually* believe that fetuses deserve a right to life, real people, LOTS
of them. Do you or don't you want to convince them to think differently? If
you don't, their view WILL prevail and become defacto reality, in law.

Of
course not, but this is not a debate about "fact", it is a debate about
perception and values. There is no real disagreement about what a fetus
is,
in *fact*,

Oh, that's funny. That's a very funny and completely untrue statement.

It is not funny and it is a fact. There is no real, substantive disagreement
about the nature of fetuses, everyone can look at ultrasound pictures, there
is plenty of medical material available, everyone knows what happens when
they are allowed to develop. The argument here centres completely on the
moral implications of terminating a pregnancy, about the balancing of the
needs and desires of the mother against the *presumed* rights of the fetus,
if they exist. Everything that is subject to debate is subjective. One group
of people perceive the interests and rights of the mother to overwhelm all
interests that may attribute to the fetus. The other group view the
interests of the fetus to overwhelm all but the vital interests of the
mother. Neither point of view is right or wrong per se, both are alternative
social arrangement that could be instated. Some think