My hope is that this open, honest and civil dialogue about the issue of abortion will benefit people who struggle with this issue as they carefully consider and weigh both sides of this issue.
Original post: What issues are people basing their vote on? Social, economic or foreign policy? Which one is more important?
Me: Seems like it should be economic. I think without a strong economy social matters won’t matter much and foreign policy would be unenforceable without a strong economy.
P2: Social. Without strong social policies, you can't have a strong economy.
Me: I guess it depends on what you mean by social issues, I can make the case that without strong ethics a strong economy is not possible. Sure you can pass all kinds of laws but if people can’t self-govern they then need to be governed. That has always led to impoverished conditions. If you go beyond ethics to specific contemporary issues, I would not agree. Not that the contemporary issues don’t have an ethical aspect. However, economically we were fine before those issues arose. That leads me to believe those issues don’t have a large influence on economics.
P3: I don't believe for one moment that Republicans spend less or have smaller government than Democrats. So, if we're just choosing between D and R, and both sides continue to send us deeper into the shitter economically, I vote based on social and foreign policy issues. If we were to throw in some third-party candidates, I would have to actually give some thought to who I would vote for, but I don't see any third-party candidates being a real contender under our current political setup. :(
Me: What type of foreign policy would you propose?
P2: My main social issues here are schools and abortion rights. I would argue that children who receive a good education are less likely to end up in prison or on government assistance, and pay more into taxes because they have higher paying jobs. So decent schools for everyone is a social issue that we should fund better than we do. Abortion rights are important, because if a woman doesn't have the right to determine whether she wants to have more children, then not only do we have a lot more unwanted children, many born into homes without adequate funds, we also have women who cannot go to school or get jobs, because they are home taking care of children. One could argue that that's contraception, not abortion, but I think that the same government that wants to deny one, wants to deny the other.
P3: Me? I align much more with the Libertarians when it comes to foreign policy.
Me: P2, sorry I don't see how abortion rights helps or hinders the economy. Maybe I am missing something there. I also don’t see schools as a social issue especially if you feel they need more funding. Education is important for Jobs I agree but if we think it is a funding issue then it is economic. If you think the schools teaching philosophy is wrong or needs to change then I would see it as a social issue.
Me: P3, in theory as a libertarian I tend to agree, however, I don’t know if it is a tenable position anymore. If we retreat into our boarders and pretend the rest of the world does not exist what would happen? Would Iran wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Would China continue to exploit 3rd world countries and drain natural resources from those countries? The issue about foreign policy is about stability in the world. Given history and human nature 100% peace and stability is impossible. Without a strong economy and some reasonably decent treatment of foreign countries there would be war around the world. Some may say the United States is imperialistic. That may be true but do you think if we weren’t no other country would fill the void? Pax Romana. This is the reason why Obama broke his promise to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He couldn’t do it with creating massive instability in the region.
P3: Don, think of it like this: There are over a million abortions performed each year (a sad statistic, and proof that we need more reproductive education and cheap, easy access to all forms of birth control). If every one of those children had been born, many of them to poor families, that's just that many more children being taken care of by welfare, food stamps, and medicaid -- a huge drain on the economy. I think our best bet to end abortions is not to make them illegal (which does little to reduce the number of abortions performed, and greatly increases the number of dead women AND fetuses), but to make them unneeded through education, affordable health care, and adequate social programs.
Me: Not to poison the well but didn’t the Roosevelt’s fund Margret Sanger’s eugenics here in the United States?
P2: I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, though...
P3: Iraq and Afghanistan are a different beast now because we did so much to create instability in the region. However, I would like to see the US do a lot less invading and a lot more diplomacy wherever possible. I think there is a huge area between "police of the world" and "hunkering down ignoring the world."
Me: P2, your right, I just not sure I would consider them to be unbiased.
P3: *cough* you're *cough* :P
Me: P3 who should be the police of the world then? Or should we let Iran do what they want with Israel?
Me: P3 your idea of ending abortion by education does not seem to be rational. Do you really think education would end it? I don’t think it would. I think it is a stretch. The only real question is when is ok to take the life of an innocent human being. Is being poor a reason?
P3: There shouldn't be just one "police of the world" at all. It should be a group of nations, such as the UN or something similar.
Me: The UN has not troops or money. They have to borrow from us.
P3: Education alone? Not at all. You have to look at all the reasons a woman chooses to have an abortion and then find solutions to those. Just making it illegal accomplishes nothing other than killing women. If your goal is killing off the whores who opened their legs, then making it illegal is a great solution. If your goal is to protect ALL stages of life, then reducing abortion can only be brought about through comprehensive education policies, accessible and affordable health care (prenatal, psychiatric, etc.), and social programs.
Me: The UN has sanctions but often they don’t produce the desired results. Plus China and Russia veto any action.
Me: P3, you didn't answer my questions. When is ok to take the life of an innocent human being?
P3: I personally don't think it's ever okay. But I realize that not everyone shares my views on when a fetus is a human and when not. I think that's a decision that should be left between a woman and her doctor. At the same time, I think that we need to work hard to reduce the reasons women make that choice in the first place. Think about this practically. The way things are now, there are a lot of abortions. Making it illegal would have little impact on the number of abortions performed, but a great impact on the number of dead women. So approaching this from a legal standpoint, we need to keep it legal while at the same time working hard to reduce the need for abortions. THAT is how I can help to save innocent lives.
Me: If it is never ok then why would we allow it?
Me: Isn’t the point of law to protect the innocent?
P3: You're talking in ideals. I'm looking at reality. The reality of the situation is that making abortion illegal will just result in more dead women, with little affect on the number of dead fetuses. What has that accomplished, aside from MORE death? I feel like a broken record here. If you want to protect innocent unborn children, you have to reduce the CAUSE of abortions. You have to make women not WANT to get one and not feel so desperate that they NEED one. You need to educate women about their bodies so they don't get pregnant in the first place. You need to provide women (and men) with as much contraception as they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, this is the only way. I value ALL life, and I'm not into slut-shaming. I want to be realistic and create laws that ACTUALLY protect the innocent by reducing the number of abortions.
Me: What proof do you have that there will be more dead woman? It sounds like you are saying it is ok to take an innocent human life if the perpetrator might hurt or kill them themself. If we apply that logic to other crimes we would not make bank robbery illegal because banks robbers might get hurt. We should really just focus on the cause of them being a bank robber instead of making it against the law. What is sounds like to me is it IS alright to take the life of an innocent human being if it what a person thinks is best for them.
P3: No, what I'm saying is that no one should get an abortion because I believe it's killing an innocent life. And in order to achieve the goal of no abortions, I support social programs, education, and access to healthcare that will lead to a great decrease in the number performed. Where are you getting that I think it's okay to take a life? I'm only arguing for what is PROVEN to work (see Europe) at reducing abortions. Again, if you want fewer abortions, you reduce the reasons that women seek them in the first place. If you just make them illegal, all you're saying is that women dying in alleys and from drinking lysol somehow deserve it (slut-shaming).
Me: Does Europe still have abortions? Is one human life worth less than two? Maybe you won’t hurt or kill an innocent human being but other people would. Shouldn’t we do something to stop them from killing an innocent human being beyond just trying to low the numbers of killing?
P3: Many European countries have a much lower per-capita abortion rate than the US. Again, making abortion illegal will not stop it. How do you propose to make the abortion rate 0? Aside from waving a magic wand, the next best bet is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and increasing the support for women who want to CTT but don't feel they can (emotionally, financially, etc).
Me: I am not saying that woman deserve to die (slut-shamming).
P3: That's what happens when abortions are illegal. Then you have two dead instead of one. I am "pro-life" in the sense that I place value on ALL life and want to decrease the number of deaths of all living people (born and unborn).
Me: Do we create laws and really think crime will be zero? No we don’t but it is not a reason not to have a law.
Me: Who will speak for the innocent? Who will stand up for their right to life? If you are “pro-life” why would you support the only one who has a choice of life and death for the other?
P3: I support reducing abortions in the only way that works. Again, if you want to save lives, you reduce the REASONS women get abortions. If you actually care about saving lives (women and unborn children), you would do everything in your power to decrease the deaths. Making abortion illegal is not the way you accomplish that. Hundreds of years of history shows this. If you want to bury your head in the sand and just hope that it will "go away" if you wish hard enough, be my guest. But it won't do squat. You have to educate and support these women if you want to reduce abortions (and deaths via back-alley and at-home abortions).
P3: I support the rights of the unborn by supporting policies that are proven to decrease abortions. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps in a few decades or a century, by continuing to support women and their reproductive health and knowledge, we can come to a point where it isn't needed any more.
Me: So it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being if we have not addressed the reasons why woman want to take the life of an innocent human being that they conceived?
P3: /sigh. Where on earth are you getting that from?
P3: If I thought it was "ok" why on earth would I be fighting for reducing the number of abortions?
P2: Personally, I believe that the issue in the abortion debate is whose rights are paramount, the unborn child's, or the mother's? The child's right to life vs. the mother's right to control her own body and reproduction. Innocent vs. guilty shouldn't be a part of it. To tell a fully grown and developed person that her rights are subservient to those of the child developing inside of her is to say that she is less than the child. If it were possible to beam that baby out, and put it in the uterus of a woman who wanted a child, we'd live in a perfect world. But we don't. I do agree with Sarah that education is key, and even more important is access to free or at least affordable contraception. When people have access to these things, abortion rates and teen pregnancies go down. But so many people focus on the teen pregnancy, they ignore a woman who has 3 kids already, her birth control fails, and she doesn't want another child. Should the family be forced to have an unwanted child? I don't think so. The only 100% effective form of birth control is abstinence. My great grandmother resorted to that after 6 pregnancies in 7 years. I don't think either she or her husband were too thrilled about that solution, but it's the only one that was available to them.
Me: I am not burying my head in the sand hundreds of years of history has shown that laws and punishments ARE a deterrent. Plus your argument keeps coming around to the idea that it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being because it is a practical way to reduce abortions. Maybe the keep word is innocent. An INNOCENT human life is killed.
Me: I am not saying we should not do what we can to give woman reasons not to have abortions or prevent pregnancy. Why not have a law as well? A law to protect the innocent.
P3: Where did I say that it's okay to take a life because it's a way to reduce abortions? I don't believe those words have ever come from my fingers. I said that the way to reduce abortions is to educate, empower, and support women so that there is no NEED for abortions. Where are you getting that I think it's all fine and dandy to get an abortion? Am I being misunderstood? I cannot even comprehend where you are getting that.
P3: Because reality, history, and evidence suggest that just making abortion illegal across the board only has a small affect on the number of abortions, while having a huge affect on the number of dead women. If you're cool with more death, that's fine. I, on the other hand, would like to reduce the death.
Me: P2, how do we determine whose rights are paramount? Who should determine that? So you agree the child has rights? And the mothers right to… (whatever reason she comes up with) over rides the child’s right to life?
Me: P3, I am just following your conclusions to their logical ends. If there is no excuse for taking the life of an innocent human being why do you keep saying there is a reason mainly the possibility the mother might harm herself in an illegal abortion? So it is OK in your worldview for someone else to take the life of an innocent human being.
P2: Yes. A fully formed human being who can survive on her own has rights that override those of an unborn child. That is how we determine whose rights are paramount. If there were a way to separate them, that would be awesome. But we can't, so someone has to decide. You decide the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the mother. I disagree.
Me: P2, what about a child of 6 months? Does the mother have the right to take that life? It is not fully formed and can't live on its own either.
Me: P2, I do not think that any all rights are equal. Do you? I do think the right to life is greater than the right to more disposable income. Mother’s or child’s right to life should be equal unless we want to define a child as something less than human.
P3: That is not at all the logical end to my argument. My point is that we need to reduce the number of abortions. Period. Full stop. Now, looking at this objectively, whether or not abortion remains legal or illegal has little affect on the rate of abortions performed. By saying that I wish them to remain legal is NOT saying that I support them or think it's okay to have one. I just know, from facts and research, that illegal = more deaths, while legal = fewer deaths. Looking at it from an "all life is sacred" point of view, I support the side the results in the fewest deaths. Again, that does not mean I like abortions or think they are okay. In fact, I support policies that would actually have an affect on reducing, and possibly eventually ending, abortions. Isn't that the goal we all have? Why choose a method that will never get us to our goal, when there is one that can and will?
P2: No, not a baby that has been born. The mother's right to her body is no longer the issue. When the baby is 6 months old, then the child's right to life doesn't come into direct conflict with the mother's rights.
Me: P3, if that is true why not do both? Education and giving woman reasons not to get pregnant and a law? Wouldn’t that give us the best results?
P2: Disposable income? What about being able to feed the children you have first? What about being able to attend college and work? What about not being forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth? You make it sound like a flippant decision that loose women make lightly. I would disagree, and I think that above all, a woman has the right to decide if she is going to go through all of that or not. No matter her reasons, be they noble or foolish.
Me: P2, why does or how does the location of a child increase or decrease the Child’s right to life? This is actually interesting article on this topic http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411 Basically The Journal of Medical Ethics has an article that states that the reason given for an abortion are no different than the arguments for after-birth abortions.
P3: As it stands right now, making it illegal would do more harm than good. But if we ever get to the point where all women have the financial and mental support to carry a pregnancy to term, and pregnancy was never a life-threatening condition, I might be able to get behind that. I just think that's still a long way off. In the meantime, I am coming at this from a purely practical perspective: the goal is fewer deaths, so I support the policies that achieve that result. Period.
P2: I think that's a ridiculous argument, actually. The mother has the right to decide whether she wants to have a baby or not. The state should not be able to decide that for her. The very real right to life of the baby are not made less real, it's just that the very real right of the mother are in direct opposition. The right of the mother to not have children is not in opposition to her child's right to life once it is born. Then she can put it up for adoption, have it raised by her parents (if they're willing), etc. It is ONLY when the child is still within her body, and there is NO way for both people's rights to be honored, that, sadly, hers take precedence.
Me: P2, I don’t know what mothers are make flippant decisions. I don’t know what they are thinking, but I can’t conceive of a reason why a mother should be able to kill her child. Nor do I think it is good policy of the government to make umpteen exceptions for a mother to take the life of her child.
P2: Well, I'll agree that exceptions are trying to have it both ways. If it's murder when you conceived consensually, it's still murder when rape or incest were the cause. But I do think, if a mother does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do so.
Me: P2, but why does the location matter? You said it is her child. Is it an innocent life? We shouldn’t protect an innocent life simple based upon its location. Am I missing something?
P2: Yes. You are missing that the child's right to life is in direct opposition to the mother's right to her own body and future. Period. They are both very valid rights. It's a tragic situation. But they cannot, CAN NOT, both be satisfied. If she does not want to give birth, and the baby wants to be born, there is no way for them both to have their rights. Once the baby is out, there are many, many ways for them both to have their rights.
Me: P3, I think you are making my point, you are not pro-life. You are equivocating the term to mean something less than someone who is pro-life. You do think it is ok to take the life of an innocent human so long as it reduces the number of deaths. So, if we apply that logic we should have just given Germans more reasons not to kill Jews instead of stopping them with force? Because that would have worked. BTW lots of American men and woman died to protect the Jews right to life.
Me: P2, “child's right to life is in direct opposition to the mother's right to her own body and future.” I get that, I just don’t see the mother’s right to her body or future is greater than the life of her child. Being a parent is about sacrifice. I should ask what you mean buy future. Is that a nice way to wrap what is essential greed with a nice bow? I mean more disposable income over the life of another child, that seems selfish and greed based to me. I am not saying that all woman have that as a reason but I think greed will account for most of them. It is not mother’s right to life and her child’s right to life it is a mothers “future” verse the life of her child. I hate to call it greed because that sounds terrible on the mother’s part but I really seems to be correct.
P2: I don't think it's greed to want to have control over your own life, your own body, and your own reproduction. Perhaps you do. Her future? By that I mean, she doesn't want (more) children. (I put more in parenthesis because some women who have abortions already have children, others do not, and I want to acknowledge both possibilities.) I don't think it's greed to want to have some control over your life and your future. Being a parent is indeed about sacrifice. What if you do not want that sacrifice? What if you do not want to be a parent? You have that right. It's a complicated, sticky issue. But to use the term 'innocent' every time you talk about the child, and the term 'greed' when you talk about the mother, brings a level of blame into it that I do not think belongs here. There is no need to blame a woman for getting pregnant, which is a pretty bow for what I'm hearing. But when it comes down to it, at a very base level, I think that a woman's greed when it comes to how she is going to live her own life takes precedent over the right of her unborn child to be born. Anything we can do to make abortions less common is a good thing, short of denying women the right to have control over their bodies and their reproductive life.
Me: P2, I don’t have problems with woman having control over their lives, bodies or reproductive provided it does not take the life of an innocent child. The reasons you gave above all seem to be selfish (a border and better term than greed). You are trying to change the terms you use to make it sound better. “Reproductive life” sounds better than killing her “child”. You are the one who call it a child. That’s call it what it is and stop trying to whitewash what we are talking about. I think a child’s right to life supersedes any right of the mother short of the mother’s right to life.
P2: So we agree that it's a matter of rights. We just disagree about whose rights are paramount. I think it's the mother's rights, you think it's the child's. That's fine. So, to your original question, what issue is most important to you? This discussion was mainly about social issues, but I'm not sure you ever had the chance to say what was most important to you. Social, economic, or foreign?
P2 (And I don't think I've whitewashed anything...I called it a child, I said I think that exceptions are just politics. I think ending a life is tragic. But I think forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and go through labor is tragic as well.)
Me: I am grateful that you are so candid about your position. I am just surprised that you don’t see something wrong with the idea that the rights of some people supersede the right to life to an innocent child. I appreciate your stance, but I feel it is important that someone stand up for those innocent children that cannot exercise their rights.
Me: I don’t think the killing of a child as tragic, I think it is wrong or even evil. Life is full of choices and all choices have consequences. Taking the life of a child should not be an alternative to avoid the consequences of our choices.
P2: What about rape and incest, where the consequences have no relation to the mother's choice? I've said what I think, but you're saying that abortion is an alternative to consequences of choices.
P2: And I feel very strongly about this issue, and I do appreciate your passion towards your view. I wish there were a way to bring our views in line with each other. Alas, it can not be. Women cannot have the full right to control their bodies if abortion is illegal. The lives of unborn children cannot have the full right to be born if women have the right to control their bodies. That's the tragic part, to me, that there is truly no good answer. At the end of it all, I am absolutely unwilling to say that a woman who has had an abortion is evil.
Me: I was wondering why that had not come up yet. Fist this is a logical fallacy taking a minority event as justification for all. Logic issues aside. Do you think it right to punish a child for the crimes of the father?
P2: I didn't bring it up because I don't think it's a real issue. As I said before, I think it's politics. But you brought the matter of choices, and consequences of those choices up, so I wondered what you felt.
Me: So, do you think it right to punish a child for the crimes of the father?
Me: P2, you are right everyone can’t have every right because it will infringe on the rights of others. Our country was founded on the principle that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness provided it does not infringe on the right s of others. This is the essence of the libertarian platform. The child’s rights are being infringed. This is the most basic of all rights and it can’t be superseded otherwise all other rights are meaningless. If you could see that it is the most basic and necessary right I think you would see that it should not be superseded.
P2: I see your point, but I disagree with your conclusions. I was raised in a libertarian, pro-choice household. The majority of libertarians are pro choice, because they value individual rights. I don't consider myself libertarian any more, and haven't for a long time. But I cut my teeth on the principles of it, and I understand it. I'm not saying you don't, just that I do understand the issues and the politics involved. Thanks for a spirited discussion tonight, it's been a lot more reasoned than that on the TV, that's for sure. :)
Me: I know many Libertarians live a contradiction. They have not followed their stated ideals to their logical conclusion.
P2: Well, your interpretation of the logical conclusion. Not theirs. I don't think all logical conclusions are the same.
Me: Without the right to life no other right matter. We can just kill people and they never have an opportunity to practice any other right. What is tragic is there is a war against women, especially the unborn women who never get any rights.
Me: Please tell me how my logical conclusion is wrong. I am a rational person, I can handle it. If libertarians believe that we have the right to do as we wish provided we don’t infringe upon the rights of others, how does the pro-life position not follow? The only way that follows is if all rights are viewed as equal. However, other than in this discussion I have never had anyone make the claim that the right to buy a car supersedes the right of a life. Or a less drastic example of the right to free speech supersedes the right to life. In fact, our government recognizes you don’t have the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater because someone might get hurt or killed. In other words, their right to life and safety (Basic human needs) supersedes the free speech rights of the individual yelling “fire”.
Me: To clarify and put it as plainly as possible. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a child, no justification for abortion is adequate.
P2: I didn't say your logical conclusion was wrong, so much as that it does not agree with mine or that of the pro-choice libertarians. I don't think anyone said the right to buy a car, or the right to free speech, superseded the right to life, though certainly people have died for the right to free speech, as you well know, as you have served our country in the military, which I have not. I do think you're rational and can handle it, I just think that one person's logical conclusion is not the same as another person's. In my opinion, the right to liberty over my own body supersedes the right of the UNBORN child. A woman should not be forced to carry a life inside of her that she does not want. That is the argument. The right to life of the unborn child does NOT supersede the woman's right to freedom. The definition of unborn child = person is mostly semantics, and I don't like to get pulled into that argument, because I can see both sides. That unborn child, fetus, embryo, would be a person if they were allowed to be born, and to pretend otherwise is fallacious. But to say that the unborn child has the same rights as the woman carrying it is wrong. I understand that you do not agree on this, but that is how I feel.
Me: I don’t think logic is not the issue it is the presuppositions that are different. Logic is not opinion based where presuppositions are. Logic is just the tool.
Me: I think we are going back in a circle now, but maybe we did not explore the depth of this issue. I don’t see the location of the child as an adequate justification for taking the life of a child. Giubilini and Minerva make a convincing argument that any argument for abortion is valid for what they call “after birth abortion”. Their argument is valid and logically flows even if it is disturbing. I don’t see a difference of location to be compelling and neither do they. So why is it different for you?
P2: See, we're never going to agree. You do not see the location of the child as being the crux of the issue, and I see it as the entire issue. I disagree with their argument and find it silly. It is different because a woman is being forced to carry a life form inside of her body that she does. not. want. That's liberty. That's privacy. That is the entire issue.
P4: Interesting discussion. So if a baby is aborted at 7 months it does not have the right to life. But if it is born prematurely at 7 months it does? Isn't that rather arbitrary?
P2: Not arbitrary. At 7 months pregnancy, it is still inside the mother, and her rights take precedent. If it is born, her rights are no longer infringed by the baby's rights. But abortions of 7 month old fetuses are extremely rare, and generally involve cases when the baby would not survive, or the mother would not survive, or both. They are not generally done because a woman has decided that she doesn't want to have a baby.
P4: The rarity of something is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong. The same sustainable baby still lives or dies at the whim of the mother for any reason. By definition - arbitrary. And what I get from this discussion is that women get abortions not because of what is happening inside their bodies but of the consequences of what happens outside their bodies i.e.being responsible for the baby. So the right being claimed is not really about their bodies but about the ability to decide whether to be a mother or not. Which I think is a different discussion.
Me: P2, it has gone from a child to a “life form" now. Either way it is a distinct life form or human being than the mother. It is not the mothers body that is being killed it is a child. This is a biological fact.
Me: P2, so let me see if I can sum up your position. It is ok for a mother to take the life of her child only when it is in her uterus. Any other time or place is wrong. Because any right of the mother outweighs the life of her child only in utero. After the child is born the right of the child to life supersedes all of the mother’s rights. Is that your position?
P2: Yes, that is my position.
Me: It seems in your position a great amount of rights transfer only after birth. The child has no rights until it is born?
P2: Not if the child's rights are in violation with the mother's. It's not that I don't think the child has any rights...it's that when the choice has to be made between hers and the baby's, hers take precedence.
Me: What kinds of rights does the unborn child have then?
Me: What I don’t get is how you or anyone justifies that birth is the critical factor. Who’s to say Giubilini and Minerva are wrong? You pick birth they pick a few months after and Alex Sanger even longer after birth. All three use the same arguments. So picking the time i.e. birth, seems arbitrary to me. How are your arguments different from Giubilini and Minerva or Sanger?
P2: Sigh. Can we agree to disagree here? It seems to me like you are a man who really enjoys political arguments, and I am a woman who really, really does not. I have tried to make my point, which is that I think the woman has rights while she is carrying the baby. Her rights come first. That is all. Giubilini and Minerva are arguing a stupid point, trying to trap people who believe in a woman's right to choose into saying that abortion is murder, and therefore, murder of anyone who is dependent upon them is fine. And how is my arguing that a woman has the right to control her body the same as someone arguing that it's ok to kill a 6 month old baby? It's not the same at all. The critical factor is, it's HER BODY, HER CHOICE.
Me: P2, I think we agree that we disagree. BTW I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this frankly and honestly without malice. I like to discuss issues because that is how we learn and avoid counterproductive conflicts. I would like to add one final point if I could. Your last statement is just simple not accurate. It is not HER BODY that is the issue here, it is the CHILD’S BODY that is. Second, her choice for what? Choice sounds so noble and liberty affirming. Well until you realize the CHOCIE is to take the life of an INNOCENT CHILD. HER CHOICE is meaningless without what the CHOICE is really about. This becomes a misleading shell game of words. I guess you are right we will just disagree, hopefully someone else finds these posts helpful as they carefully consider and weigh both side of this issue.
Me: “Slavery consists in being subject to the will of another…” Thomas Paine