For my Libertarian friends

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people have two different conceptions of a particular action. One finds that action permissible and the other does not.  There's no corresponding responsibility on people making the value judgement. The action is either right or wrong. It's two siding trying to reason what the correct opinion is. There's no responsibility. I don't even know what you're referring to.

jammun wrote: At least here in the U.S., the government (i.e., we the people as represented by the IRS) have already decided when life begins.  It is at childbirth, not at conception.  If you doubt this, get your wife pregnant today, on August 14, 2010, and try to claim the child as a dependent for this year's taxes.

We know what the US government says.  We think they're wrong.

You might also want to glimpse at a few of the previous 100 pages and find out what we think about the IRS too, while you're at it. 

jammun wrote: At least here in the U.S., the government (i.e., we the people as represented by the IRS) have already decided when life begins.  It is at childbirth, not at conception.  If you doubt this, get your wife pregnant today, on August 14, 2010, and try to claim the child as a dependent for this year's taxes.

This is a joke right?

Epignosis wrote: jammun wrote: At least here in the U.S., the government (i.e., we the people as represented by the IRS) have already decided when life begins.  It is at childbirth, not at conception.  If you doubt this, get your wife pregnant today, on August 14, 2010, and try to claim the child as a dependent for this year's taxes.  We know what the US government says.  We think they're wrong. You might also want to glimpse at a few of the previous 100 pages and find out what we think about the IRS too, while you're at it.

jammun wrote: Epignosis wrote: jammun wrote: At least here in the U.S., the government (i.e., we the people as represented by the IRS) have already decided when life begins.  It is at childbirth, not at conception.  If you doubt this, get your wife pregnant today, on August 14, 2010, and try to claim the child as a dependent for this year's taxes.  We know what the US government says.  We think they're wrong. You might also want to glimpse at a few of the previous 100 pages and find out what we think about the IRS too, while you're at it.    Well I have read more than a few of the previous pages, and whether or not I agree or disagree 'bout the government, I still would claim that a Libertarian cannot have an anti-abortion stance.

You couldn't even tell me what a libertarian is, nor probably any significant amount of the justification for their beliefs. Please, you're talking nonsense.

^^ Well enough then.  Let the unwanted child be born.  But who's going to fulfill the following:

Epignosis wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Life begins at conception. Not all life is equal. An unborn fetus is not a "human being." I leave it up to embryologists to decide when it can feel pain and how much that pain matters. I support abortion because it's more practical than having a bunch of unwanted, un-careable babies wandering around. Oh and the woman's rights stuff. I prefer not to give much of a sh*t about the morality of killing a fetus when we're all not getting too bent out of shape by real world human suffering and killing. So one's ability to feel pain makes it a human being?  You're telling me that the comatose man in ICU is not a human being?  As for "unwanted" babies, have you ever heard of adoption?  My in-laws have four adopted children and they foster.  And my wife, who studied to work in an adoption agency (but wound up being a teacher) tells me that there are many parents waiting for children to adopt.  Your statement "unwanted, un-careable babies wandering around" really shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Regarding women's rights...well, that's what happens when you have sex.  It's a potential consequence of sex.  Abortion is just another way the government seeks to protect people from the bad consequences of their behavior. When would we accept the taking of someone's life to solve one's social problems? As for rape... @your rape study; should any of the five women of that very small, thirty year old (and I'm guessing pretty localised) study who did choose abortions have been forced to go through nine months of pregnancy complete with all the social and personal (and possibly even health) problems that entails and then give birth to their rapist's (almost certainly unwanted) child after they were raped? Uh, abortion isn't a governmental catch against unwanted consequences, it's  a medical procedure that the government does not prohibit. Regardless of the morality you might attach to abortion, it seems rather unfair to accuse the government of actively coddling people simply because it doesn't prohibit it. --- Personally, I'm less sure what I think about abortion than about most things. I think it should stop being an exclusively female choice, on account of the fact that being a father is actually a pretty important thing (though I have no idea how you could make that work). I think that if you have unprotected sex, abortion should not be used as emergency contraception and I don't think that social inconvenience is enough of a justification to solve your own (admittedly significant) completely avoidable problems by killing whatever a fetus is. Recently read this in A Rebours: 'What Society considered a crime was the act of killing a being endowed with life; and yet, in expelling a foetus, one destroyed an animal that was less formed and living and certainly less intelligent and more ugly than a dog or a cat, although it is permissible to strangle these creatures as soon as they are born.' I have plenty of evidence to show that the US's governing bodies actively seek to protect people from the consequences of their practices.  The government bailouts are just one example.  Schools passing failing students is yet another.  Abortion is not the only piece to this trend.  Sure it's a medical procedure, but why is it done?  According to the first link about 93% (almost all) abortions are done on several as a way of making the mother's life more convenient.  And that's a shame. The link I gave about rape was not a blanket statement regarding whether a raped woman should or should not have an abortion.  It was to debunk a common assumption about rape and abortion- that is all.  Don't take it mean more than it does, and it doesn't pass judgment on those five women who did get an abortion. You're guessing the study was pretty localized, but that doesn't make sense at all given how extremely rare it is to get pregnant by rape.

The government may be protecting people from the consequences of their actions, however this is not an area where they are doing so. It is an area where they are not intervening rather than an area where they are intervening.

I agree that it's a damn shame that a vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. I just don't blame the government for that (and I think the blame for how many abortions are done for convenience falls to A) a culture where children and serious relationships are put off longer than ever before and B) the fact that women are more than ever now expected to hold up a conventional career).

Concerning localisation: 'This was apparently all she could find' is the phrase used to explain the low number of participants. Now, even if that number represents all she could find across the entirety of the US, that's study in one particular country where taboos concerning abortion may well have resulted in a radically different response to other countries. Either way, the representation of the study here gives no indication of its reliability and the rather tactical choices of words like 'most' and 'few' makes it very hard for me to believe that the page in question is treating the study it is based on with complete openness and intellectual honesty (out of 33 people, I have no idea how many a 'few' are).

The way that this particular study is represented here is to undermine the credibility of the 'pro-abortion' example of rape victims as being justified in having abortions with the strawman title 'abortion cures rape'.

However, I think this representation has either completely missed the point of said example or deliberately misrepresented it, which is that not even one person should be forced to unwillingly go through a nine month pregnancy and then have their rapist's baby simply because they were raped. The point of said example is not that abortion will make the rape more bearable, nor that all women who get raped will choose an abortion. Rather the point of that example is that when you have no choice in matter of abortion, someone may be pregnant through no fault of their own and then be forced to go through nine months of pregnancy and have a baby.

Epignosis wrote: jammun wrote: ^^ Well enough then.  Let the unwanted child be born.  But who's going to fulfill the following:   Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm. This assumes way too much.  And when the father and the mother fail , it then falls on the government to sub for the mother and the father.  That's all I'm saying.  I'm not saying it's right.  I'm not saying it's the way it should be.   In an ideal world, you have me and my wife, or you and yours.  We choose to bring life into the world.  We raise our children at considerable personal sacrifice, with the upside of considerable personal and familial joy.  Others are not so inclined.       Are you not aware of the large number of private and non-profit adoption agencies in the US? As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of eager parents who would welcome this child into their home as their own.

jammun wrote: Epignosis wrote: jammun wrote: ^^ Well enough then.  Let the unwanted child be born.  But who's going to fulfill the following:   Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm. This assumes way too much.  And when the father and the mother fail , it then falls on the government to sub for the mother and the father.  That's all I'm saying.  I'm not saying it's right.  I'm not saying it's the way it should be.   In an ideal world, you have me and my wife, or you and yours.  We choose to bring life into the world.  We raise our children at considerable personal sacrifice, with the upside of considerable personal and familial joy.  Others are not so inclined.       Are you not aware of the large number of private and non-profit adoption agencies in the US? As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of eager parents who would welcome this child into their home as their own.   As an adoptee myself, I am well aware of that option.  I am not particularly religious, but Thank God my biological mother was a young, unwed Catholic college student, who would never have thought of aborting, or else I would not be here to discuss this with you at all.

I'm not adopted, but I wasn't born under ideal circumstances. 

By the way, glad you're here! 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people have two different conceptions of a particular action. One finds that action permissible and the other does not.  There's no corresponding responsibility on people making the value judgement. The action is either right or wrong. It's two siding trying to reason what the correct opinion is. There's no responsibility. I don't even know what you're referring to. When typing the original post I feared my point would be lost. I cannot express it differently, so I guess it will remain lost.   By making this statement you are distancing yourself from the real life person whose choice is being affected by the moral, emotional, ideological, value judgments being made. This level of detachment devolves you of any responsibility so as you rightly say there is no responsibility. I say reconnect this disconnect then have an opinion. Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's an entirely different situation. Yes it is and there is no denying it. I've even made that same observation myself. I was simply responding to an out of context quote. Explain yourself then. You didn't even attempt to explain how I would possibly be responsible for somebody else's actions.

I have already stated that I cannot express myself differently, so any attempt I make to explain myself further is destined to failure, but as you insist, I'll have another try.

Edited by Dean - August 14 2010 at 19:27