Why would I try to persuade you...It is not my concern.
I do wonder what "garbage argument" you refer to, as I simply stated my position.
Why would I try to persuade you...It is not my concern.
I do wonder what "garbage argument" you refer to, as I simply stated my position.
The garbage argument is the one that pro life restricts rights and pro choice does not, they both restrict rights, the question is who's rights should be restricted.
I am undecided, why debate on a forum if you do not wish to persuade people to see your view of things. Debate with no goal is not debate.
Why do you find it necessary to voice your opinion if it is only to be agreed with or diss agreed with?
I see, so at its core you are referring to the person hood argument as garbage. This is a common direction in these debates.
You likely understand the cellular mass to be a Human Person and thus due some level of rights, regardless of the fact it is incapable of the basic criteria used to define a human person. Though I respect your freedom to hold that opinion, I disagree with it based on science and logical thought.
This debate is usually something of a brick wall, as many simply refuse to deal in fact rather than emotion. Those who see the value in preserving the unformed Human are adamantly Pro-Life (though I question the term), those who value the life of the woman tend to be pro-choice.
PS....if you truly wish to gain an understanding of the debate I would follow, I would recommend you read something written by far more capable people than myself, as I found this to be the most informative article on the subject ever written:
http://2think.org/abortion.shtml
http://2think.org/abortion.shtml
Well in most cases the woman who is carrying the poignancy is in no real danger. There is a risk of death during child birth but I imagine you take a grater risk driving to work every day.
How can you disagree with me, I have stated numerous times I don't know where I stand on this issue, the only comment I made is that I personally couldn't do it.
Both sides have valid points if you cut through all of the BS. Talking points are for radio shows.
It comes down to who's rights are worth defending and who's are not. There is a value to a fetus, is there not?
Of course the fetus has value...just not the same value as a fully functional and thinking Human Being. The Growing fetus likely has far more value to the woman it dwells within than we will ever be capable of knowing. I have also expressed my personal choice that I could never go through the process for me and mine, but that I do not feel my opinion should be forced upon another....certainly not someone who obviously has a far better understanding of the details than I ever will.
You should read the Carl Sagan article I provided...very powerful.
Well I don't make the personhood argument, the idea that a being with the intelligence of a tree is a person is total BS. I argue more from the point of a (human) fetus being a human life destined for personhood. I do know the kinds of people you're thinking of, I find most are pro-life for religious rather then scientific reasons and they do the pro-life side no favors.
There is certainly an argument to made for the eventual person position. In this debate one must defend the position that the eventual person is worthy of protection at the cost of the actual persons freedom.
Often, this becomes a debate more about one person deciding the opinions they hold are more important than the individual rights of someone they do not know and never will, than about the validity of the original argument.
So...let's just remove a couple pointless steps.
Yes, uninterrupted the pregnancy will eventually produce a person.
How did you guess?
My secret is out! Okay, okay, I admit, I'm not really even conservative!
*collective gasp*
How did you guess?
My secret is out! Okay, okay, I admit, I'm not really even conservative!
*collective gasp*
Your a socialist's, socialist comrade.
Similar threads
