Felicity

I did PM him that you would probably be looking for that
Well...that's not really fair...your effort on the first one left a bit to be desired IMHO.

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

Jerry

It's on the way.....


Collage and family take priority, my lady.
Please be patient.

As I made known in PM, this thread may be slower than the others as Lefty and I both have things going on.

Right now, I’m off to buy a new DeWalt 18v. drill and a tool pouch for my rig. so that I'm ready for my all-day OnSite 2 class tomorrow ( fun fun fun!) and the family is going out to dinner for once ( gotta love that Stanford loan! Target wages ain't ****e!)

Who ever said that men don't like to shop?
Clothes and tools baby! Aaaahhhyyyeeeaaau!

I'll do my best to have my opening/rebuttle in tonight, and if not tonight, tomorrow for sure.

__________________
"Nature has it's bad designs eaten by it's good ones."
Eyes of Nye, episode 114

Felicity

Now be nice, Jerry...

LeftyHenry

wait what does this mean?

__________________
Will You Stand up for the Human Race?

Felicity

My original understanding (which was from a PM from Jerry that I guess he sent to you guys too) was that we would tag-team. I understand that like in a wrestling match, only one in the ring at a time. It appears that's not what you guys expected and I assume I was left out of the communication loop somewhere...that's fine. I have already posted an opening, and a response to your opening. You responded to Jerry, though, and haven't yet responded to my comments on your opening post. I'm just waiting.....


...

LeftyHenry

Potential as in a several months, it'll be human. Several months is nothing when the santictity of life is weighed down on its shoulders.


Who are we to disrupt the natural process erm... god set forth down upon us! Interfering with such leads to this barbaric procedure pictured on my orignal post. It is not "potential" because it WILL and SHOULD be as it is natures will.

murder merely disrupts the human's life before it reaches the point where it should die. See the similiarities?

But that is in our countries, in many countries that is not so. Law is a fickle thing. Abortion qualifies as murder in every aspect aside from its legality in the USA, and qualifies as murder in every aspect period in many countries around the world today.




erm well I'm an atheist but prolifers always take this postition so since I have no knowledge of various religions towards aborition; the majority of people in this country are christian and christianity is a religion which condemns aborition, thus it shouldn't be in law because it challenges our faith

Felicity

I understand what you are saying here, but it does not guarantee an actuality in any way. Since you continue to define what the fetus “will be” rather than define what the fetus “actually is,” you are presenting an argument against abortion that aims to convict a free woman of a criminal action that has no “actual” victim. Let me give you a parallel and maybe you will better understand why I find your simple assertion that abortion is wrong because it takes a “potential” life lacking.

If I put money in the bank in a CD that earns 2.125% interest, that money has the potential to earn a significant amount of interest over time. Let’s say I expect my investment to become $5000. This is the problem with potential vs. actual. I cannot put money in the bank and claim that I have the right to the potential interest it could build, simply because my money exists in that bank. The money in the bank is merely the money it is at the time I choose to withdraw it—and nothing more than that. So—if I put $1000 in the bank today, and withdraw it in 3 months, I will have merely withdrawn $1005.33 --Not at all what I expect my money to become. If I left the money in for 909 months, I could get over $5000. My money has the POTENTIAL to be $5000 in approximately 75 years, but I am not entitled to that potential at any point until it the interest is ACTUALLY earned.

A “potential” life in the womb, is nothing more than it is at the time you withdraw it. It is nothing more than some stage of potential and not “ACTUALLY” what you claim is violated.
Legally, in the US, a woman cannot be held to the service of another person, let alone another “potential person.

We had slavery in the US, and then we abolished it. See below:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV...Section 2....
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant cannot be held to that involuntary servitude of another person—let alone another POTENTIAL person. She has not been convicted of a crime by becoming pregnant and therefore there is no basis to hold her to the servitude of motherhood against her will. Furthermore—Section two says that Congress has the right to enforce that freedom through legislation.

If you wish to defend the position that the “sanctity of life,” as you put it, outweighs a woman’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom from servitude, please offer the legal/historical evidence that supports that notion.

(C’mon Henry...try to sound sincere will ya?)
The natural process of life includes the potential cessation of life—God included that in his plan. Some pregnancies end prior to the birth of a living child “naturally.” What, then, proscribes ending a pregnancy “intentionally?” Both are things that can happen to pregnancies—natural processes of the reality of existence.

God gave woman free-will. Who is she (or you) to deny her full use of that free will?

(are you really trying or are you merely taking swipes at religion here by painting people of faith as having only ignorant, emotional, assertions of unreasonable positions? Have a little respect for the intelligence of those who hold beliefs different than yours and at least give it the old college try....isn’t that the point of these reverse debates?)
“WILL and SHOULD” ??? Please elaborate on the objective source for this claim. Have you been speaking to “nature” and how does the “natural world” have a “will.” Your assertions are seeming crazy...do you talk to animals? Did Bambi tell you abortion is wrong?

Your first sentence said: “Potential as in a several months, it'll be human.” According to your own position—the “life” disrupted in the womb is not yet human. Hence, by your own definition (and by your supposed clarification) it is not “murder.”

Aside from the fact it is legal in the US—fine....explain how denying the onset of “life” is equivalent to the taking of life. You need to retract your position on the “potentiality” of the thing, and explain your ”natural world” reference more fully for your assertion to be anything more than “spewing theocratic fundie pro-lie clap-trap of hyperbolic, revisionist linguistics.”


(Well, I'm a freakin' pro-life Christian!!!! No-one said you wouldn’t have to research...this is why I am encouraging you to try harder--otherwise the intelectual integrity of this debate on the assumed pro-life side is in question and makes the continuation pointless. )

Baloney.
Current abortion beliefs of religious groups
Pro-choice groups:

Liberal and some mainline denominations: In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1

American Baptist Churches-USA,

American Ethical Union,

American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,

American Jewish Committee,

American Jewish Congress,

Central Conference of American Rabbis,

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),

Council of Jewish Federations,

Episcopal Church (USA),

Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,

Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,

Na'Amat USA,

National Council of Jewish Women,

Presbyterian Church (USA),

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,

Union of American Hebrew Congregations,

Unitarian Universalist Association,

United Church of Christ,

United Methodist Church,

United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.


Religious groups other than denominations:

Catholics for Free Choice,

Episcopal Women's Caucus,

Evangelicals for Choice,

Jewish Women International,

Lutheran Women's Caucus,

North American Federation of Temple Youth,

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,

Women of Reform Judaism,

Women's American ORT,

Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren,

Women's League for Conservative Judaism.


BTW--arguing that abortion is a world-wide issue and laws of the US are only applicable in the US and the definition of murder is universal, and then going back to the laws of the US and the "beliefs of the majority" to support your position is poor debate form. Pick a venue.

Jerry

For the purpose of this discussion I define victory as my satisfactory demonstration of my knowledge and understanding of P.C. arguments and lines of logic. It is my goal to show that I can argue P.C. at least as well as real P.C.‘rs can by avoiding common P.C. logical pitfalls and playing to P.C. strengths, so that in the future, on regular forums, no claim of intellectual bias or lack of comprehension can accurately be levied against me.

Assuming the Pro-Choice position, it is my goal to demonstrate a woman’s right to medical privacy as decided in Roe-V-Wade, and also her right to abortion as illustrated in Planned Parenthood –v- Casey


***
Regardless of whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, in my opinion both camps should seek to minimize abortions, and perhaps both camps would even agree that everyone stands to benefit from a decrease in the number of abortions.

At best arguments of ideology are entertaining, most appeal to emotion and therefore can never be logically considered, and at worse arguments of ideology only serve to impugn the character of "the other side".

At best arguments of religion, or the lack there of, serve to help us understand each other’s core motivations, though many such discussions divert to the evident contradictions in translated scripture, and at worse arguments of religion serve only to foster elitism and divisiveness.

Nearly all ideological and religious arguments, however inspiring, emotionally compelling and thought provoking they may be, inherently violate the First Amendment when distilled down to their core: The Natural Law premise and one‘s understanding of it.

Certainly there are Theist supporters of therapeutic abortion-on-demand, just as there are many Agnostic, Atheist and Humanist supporters of various restrictions on abortion. Therefore religion, or the lack there of, is not a uniting element of The People....at least not on this issue.

The only debate format that I have observed addressing the Natural Law premise while not violating the Separation of Church and State is the format concerning “ Fundamental Rights” and “ Compelling State Interests”.

What unites The People is our Constitution and the enumeration of protected rights therein. In understanding how modern science, our ever evolving societal standards, and ’compelling state interests’ relate to the " fundamental rights" of the individual, the best resource at our disposal is SCOTUS.

The central holding of Roe-v-Wade is that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on non-therapeutic abortions.
P.P.-v-Casey, Section 1g.

To the best of my knowledge, viability occurs between 22 to 25 weeks'

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Therefore first and second trimester abortions are purely private medical decisions between the pregnant woman and her physician. Prior to viability, there is no " compelling state interest" in protecting the unborn's potential life.

Having said that, it is my opinion that the vast majority of Pro-Life arguments are meant to persuade an individual away from or towards a particular choice, and are ill suited to argue for or against matters of public policy. In other words, the language of Pro-Life speaks to the individual, not the population, as P.L arguments almost always carry a heavy personal element, on the part of the argument’s presenter, best suited for connecting with a person, not a law.

If your pictures represented an augment other than an appeal to emotion they would have been accompanied by unbiased scientific data showing that those fetuses were "viable" and therefore the state had a " compelling interest" in protecting them.

Indeed.
And if you give a Zygote "several more months" then there may be a " compelling state interest" in imposing a due-burden on the pregnant woman's right medical privacy and her right to abortion.

However, give a Zygote "several more months" and you wouldn't have a Zygote at all, but an Embryo or a Fetus.

Therefore it is safe to logically assume that there will never be a ban on aborting Zygotes.

1069

An unborn child is in possession of a complete human genetic code from the moment of conception, just as you and I are.

The woman's "right to privacy" is irrelevant as pertains to the abortion issue, because abortion is not a "private" matter.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being; as such, it is my contention that abortion is anything but a private matter, since the state always has a compelling interest in preventing murder.


By framing this issue in terms of a woman's right to control (or, as you put it, "maintain") her own body, you deny what seems to me to be undeniable: the fact that there is more than one body affected by an abortion.
When the rights of one person come into conflict with the rights of another person, the right to life should always take precedence.
It's true that in most cases, women (and, in fact, all people) have the right to bodily sovereignty.
But abortion is an exception to that rule (or should be), because unlike other methods of exercising control over one's body, an abortion infringes upon not only the body of the pregnant woman, but also on another body and, in fact, another human life.
There is not (or oughtn't to be, in a civilized society) any constitutionally protected "right to privacy" that involves eviscerating and dismembering children, regardless of their age or developmental level.
If you noticed your neighbor dismembering his child in his back yard, would you hesitate to intervene, simply because it's his child, his backyard? Would you be concerned about violating his privacy, violating his right to control his body?
He is violating your rights, and the interests of society in general, by wilfully killing an innocent child, regardless of whether it's his child, regardless of whether this act is taking place on his private property.
You have a right and a duty to intervene.
Why should a pregnant woman be considered any different?
Roe-v-Wade was wrongly decided, and needs to be reconsidered in light of recent medical advances that society has made in the interim: the introduction of more efficient contraceptives, technology that allows fetuses to be considered "viable" at ever-earlier gestational ages, 3-D ultrasound technology that reveals much more about the development of babies in utero than was known in 1973, etc.
If and when the case is re-examined, I believe the Supreme Court will decide that women have no "right to privacy" that involves the right to deliberately and wilfully kill innocent people, any more than men do.

__________________
"I do love this idea that one can scream and scream and scream, with that utopia just one more scream away."
~ Scucca

Felicity

It's like The Bible Code...It's GOT to be true!