DNC SEEKS TO WOO CATHOLICS

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]I am in support of freedom of the mother. I could just as easily say "Are you in favor of our government telling us what to do with our bodies?" But you already saw the problem. That, like what you said, is already happening in other arenas. It's always happened, and so we're at an impass, and you are forced to bring in a Nazi analogy. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has stopped being logical via Godwin's Law.[/quote]

AthiestAlex, there is a prominent Australian philosopher named Peter Singer who advocates a position similar to yours. He reaches the proper final conclusion from his premises. I just want to know if you do as well. You claim that a mother should have the freedom to decide on if she gets an abortion or not. Would you also extend that right to children who have already been born? Singer, in fact, does do this. Basicly, he takes the exact same argument that people who are pro-life do and uses it to go the other way. So my question is, do you also support the mother being able to kill her children tha are already born? If yes, at what age does this right stop, and if no, why not?

I look forward to your response.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 25 2005, 03:47 AM'] One cannot assert their rights to take away others'. [/quote]
What do you think the abortion proponents are doing??????

[Jaime]

[quote]One cannot assert their rights to take away others'. That's a concept we can learn from looking at the Bill of Rights. [/quote]

That happens every day. One simple example is you do not have the right to drive without a seat belt. We have taken that right away. If you were to drive without a seatbelt, you would hurt no one but yourself if you were to get into an accident. However, the powers that be have restricted your rights over your own body.

Any one of you could rattle off another dozen examples of this without breaking a sweat. The whole " don't take away a woman's right" argument falls apart when the realization comes that we in fact have very few rights. What most people call rights are actually priveleges. The privileges of the individual can be restricted for the greater good of society.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 26 2005, 01:34 PM']
I am in support of freedom of the mother. I could just as easily say "Are you in favor of our government telling us what to do with our bodies?" But you already saw the problem. That, like what you said, is already happening in other arenas. It's always happened, and so we're at an impass, and you are forced to bring in a Nazi analogy. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has stopped being logical via Godwin's Law. [/quote]
Ah, leaving the argument right when you were about to be pinned down.
You seem particularly unable to make distinctions.
First, there is a distinction between human cells (even germ cells like sperm and egg) and a human being. To deny that a human zygote has 26 chromazomes (the same as you or I) from the moment of conception is to deny reality. Sperm has 13 and egg has 13. Neither is a human. Neither, if left to do what it does, alone will grow to adulthood.
Second, you fail to see a distinction between guilt and innocence. An armed aggressor or a convicted criminal are not innocent. A fetus is. The right to life of an innocent human being is inviolate. Such is not the case for other humans or animals.
I wrote in a post earlier today that the analogy between the Holocaust and abortion is an apt one, not least because the Nazis pioneered forced sterilizations and other reproductive techniques. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the leaders of the eugenics movement, the same one that the Nazis gave a bad name. There are genocidal aspects to abortion as about one in three abortions are of black fetuses, even though blacks are only about 10% of the population. Planned Parenthood deliberately places its abortion mills in minority neighborhoods and advertises heavily in minority communities.
Here are Sanger's own words:
[quote]The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.[1] Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote:

"[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [2][/quote]

Finally, there is an implicit unproven assumption in your question "Are you in favor of the government telling us what to do with our bodies?". And that is, "A fetus is simply an extension of its mother, that is, part of the mother's body." But that is exactly the point that I object to. First you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fetus has no independent status. Only then will I agree with you that the government is invasive.
I have placed my evidence that the fetus is human life on the table. I haven't seen a whit of evidence from your side that it is not life. The biological definition of life is quite minimal and a fetus passes with flying colors (not surprising since all agree that a single-celled bacteria is life, how could a multi-cellular one not be).
However, the important questions are "is it independent life?" and "is it human life?" It is human from a biological standpoint because it has human dna. It is independent because it can be removed and continue to function and live (say, if we invent artifical wombs.)

My public policy compromise is that a woman has a limited right to not bear a child. But she has no right to kill her fetus. These are two separate acts. But, if the woman exercises her right to abort, she may but she cannot first kill the fetus. It must be allowed to try to survive on its own. In practice then, abortion would be illegal after viability, around 26 weeks. I think the majority of the country would be comfortable with this compromise (even Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that ensoulment occurred at quickening, partway through gestation (but he was relying on faulty biology)). In any case, I look forward to hearing your argument that a fetus is not life all the way up until it breaches. I don' t think that there is one, but I am willing to be convinced.

[Guest Jakedubbleya]

Getting away from Alex, who obviously outdone by simple logic has fled the scene under cover of this so called "Godwins Law". A law that I am entertaining to mean that the conclusion of an argument can no longer be drawn by common logic but only by faith from that designated point onward. The problem is, that point was never reached or even mentioned by anyone but yourself, next time try using your brain along with your selfish thinking.

anyhoo...

Why I can vote democrat and still be morally sound! (big picture):

Bush means America sold to the highest bidder

Highest bidder soon to be China

China has no reservations on abortion (or murder for that matter), and no reasons, or holds (hippies anyone?), to not invade a weak America.

I say keep America strong, and let Americans change the policy, it will change, and when it does we will have the position to influence the policies of other governments on the issue. In the meantime we'll save a few trees and shelter a few crazy people

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 04:36 PM']
AthiestAlex, there is a prominent Australian philosopher named Peter Singer who advocates a position similar to yours. He reaches the proper final conclusion from his premises. I just want to know if you do as well. You claim that a mother should have the freedom to decide on if she gets an abortion or not. Would you also extend that right to children who have already been born? Singer, in fact, does do this. Basicly, he takes the exact same argument that people who are pro-life do and uses it to go the other way. So my question is, do you also support the mother being able to kill her children tha are already born? If yes, at what age does this right stop, and if no, why not?

I look forward to your response. [/quote]
bump. I would really like an answer, Alex.

[AtheistAlex]

Okay.
First, let me say that there have been some good, intelligent points raised here, and I am not the person able to correctly argue against them. That said, Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies does apply when one uses an analogy to Nazis or Nazism in an internet discussion. The law states that as internet discussions go on, the probability of an analogy to Nazis or Nazism approaches one. The common inference from this, that which Godwin was intending, was that the Nazi analogy will invariably come up as a means to in effect, "shut someone up", or to shame the other person by comparing them to Nazis. Godwin's Law was made to combat such an affront.

Secondly, and more importantly, I do not actually have a solid footing on the abortion issue. Never have, probably never will. I can agree with both sides, but it's so controversial that one can't ride the fence, so I'm caught. Sorry, you're right, I can't give a good discussion on this, because of my lackluster high school education.

JP2, I do not support children being killed after they are born, but I can't just take away a woman's right to have a wanted child while it is still a part of HER physical being. Once it is born, it is not part of her being.

If we abolish abortions, then what should be done for the unwanted children born?

Edited March 3, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[avalia]

It's hard to be anything these days. I'm Catholic, then Conservitive i suppose. I feel that states my issues and stances much better then affiliating with a particular political party. I will say however, that I was chagrined to find that the entire convent of the local all-girls school voted for Kerry. Dominicans...hmmm....

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]JP2, I do not support children being killed after they are born, but I can't just take away a woman's right to have a wanted child while it is still a part of HER physical being. Once it is born, it is not part of her being.[/quote]

Why do you think that it is part of her physical being? It has a different blood type, a different genotype, a different phenotype, and sometimes a different gender. It has a different set of DNA. Please provide some scientific evidence backing up your claim or a sound philosophical proof as to why it is part of her body.

Once you do that, please respond to this. I have never once in my life heard of a woman, or a man for that matter, claiming the right to cut off her hand or poke out her eye beause it's part of her body. Indeed, if someone were to do such a thing, it would probably be considered insanity. Can you pleae enlighten me as to why this case is different?

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump

[JP2Iloveyou]

I'm gonna keep bumping this until I get a response.

[jasJis]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Mar 3 2005, 01:09 AM'] JP2, I do not support children being killed after they are born, but I can't just take away a woman's right to have a wanted child while it is still a part of HER physical being. Once it is born, it is not part of her being.

If we abolish abortions, then what should be done for the unwanted children born? [/quote]
You bring up an excellent point here Alex. This IS the challenge to pro-life Christians.

"If we abolish abortions, then what should be done for the unwanted children born?"

The answer is deep. A few points.
What's the difference between a value and a priority? Priorities change, values remain. Public nudity is a value, brushing your teeth in the morning is a priority. If we wake up late for work, we can skip brushing our teeth, but we always get dressed.

Giving life dignity is a value to Catholics. We don't prioritize it. That's why the strong are responsible for the weak. We can hate homosexuality, but we can't hate homosexuals. We are human and we often fail at the distinctions.

In my opinion, some practical ways to care for unwanted children:
-Make notification of both parents mandatory when an abortion is sought. Too many rapes and incest criminals are getting away with crimes. It also puts responsiblity back on the male, who is just as responsible. Abortion laws now shield the male from responsibility.
-Make financial responsibilty a stronger part of the penalties for both male and female. If the male chooses to raise the child for 18 years, the mother should pay.
-Stengthen the removal of parental rights from people who don't want to raise the child. Some mothers choose abortion because they don't want to deal 18 years with an abusive jerk. If he needs to be removed from the family, it should be done quickly and effectively, without constant legal challenges for years.
-Revise adoption laws to encourage adoption so kids aren't ware-housed for years in foster care. Keep birth parents away from the kids until they are 18 so we don't have people inserting themselves into families 10 years later.
-Provide charity and governmental support for single parents (male and female) who are trying to raise their kids. Instead of welfare, how about child care so the parent can work.

I've got more ideas...

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump, until Alex responds.

[JP2Iloveyou]

like I said, until I get a response. ***bump***

Come on Alex. It's a simple question. The pro-abortion position simply can't handle logic.