12/09/2004

Defending the Right to Life

I know this is a long article, but worth the read. I recently stopped sitting on the fence in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. I agree with many of the reasons listed in this article (non-religious reasons consistent with a Libertarian viewpoint). As a Libertarian, I could care less what people do to themselves, but the line is drawn when it comes to hurting others. I'm not the only Libertarian that has supported this viewpoint (Gary Nolan also supported pro-life). I'm not a religious wacko that's going to start bombing abortion clinics or killing abortion doctors, but I do believe it's wrong.

Summary:

Our DNA is what defines us as both unique and human.
All men (or mankind) are endowed with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (per the Declaration of Independence).
That life is defined at conception based on scientific definitions of life.
That abortion is extinguishing that life.

What I find very interesting is that liberals will defend the life every insect, animal, and plant in the name of protecting life, fight the death penalty..and at the same time vehemently defend abortion while defining a fetus as an "unviable tissue mass."

It occurs to me that there is an interesting side-affect of abortion. Abortion (along with cures to most STDs) has given rise to sexual promiscuity in that you can have sex without consequence (just as most STDs are now curable with the exceptions of Hepatitis, Herpes, and AIDS). I'm far from innocent (and still D&D free!), but I'm far more responsible now than I was in my youth, primarily because there ARE more serious consequences to promiscuity than when I was "sowing my wild oats"...death being one of the possibilities. Of course, the threat of death from sex would be nil if people were less promiscious.

Liberals hold their 60's mantra of "If it feels good, do it" high on their mantle. The way they should put it is, "Action without responsibility." The government will always support those that screw up...and if all else fails, blame the screw-ups on conservatives.

Though I am not passionate about this issue (meaning, I'm not going to march on any clinics, picket in front of an abortion doctors' homes, or shoot a doctor who performs abortion), I will support conservative candidates that will work to get Roe vs. Wade overturned.



23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's easy for a guy to say how wrong it is when they do not carry the buried of the pregnancy. You are either open mind or not. How can you say go ahead and legalize Mary-Jane but heck no you can't have an abortion. Who cares if the drug addicts crash their cars and kill people. At least we will get tax money from them. It's a free world for that but women let's lock them up barefoot.
Let me ask you this.
If a women is raped should she be responible for something someone else did to her? If you change the law she will be.
What if the child is deformed and the quality of it's life is so bad that it will spend most of it's life in the hospital. Does that still mean the women has to carry the buried? What if her income is so low she can not handle the medical cost? Who is responsible? Should the rest of the country pay for a life that has little to no quality since you think pro-life is the way to go?You can't say well if that's the case then it's ok but otherwise no. The laws don't work that way.
I can't say I'm surprised to hear you are so narrow minded but you can not account for every situtation. The fact is pro-choice has some people abusing it as any open law but for you to defend something you can't truly be part of is crap. Sit this one out! Oh yeah if Gary Nolan jumped off a bridge would you? Last I heard he didn't have a uteris either!
I find it hard to believe an abortion feels good. With every decision a consequence results. For whatever reason you feel it is wrong you can not truly understand the pain and struggle for many women who make these choices. We can ramble about religious beliefs and science till the day ends but you can not understand every situtation that causes the questions for the decision. You should re-think your position.

Do you really want to go back to women traveling to the darksides of town to have some half-ass doctor riping her insides out to make you feel morally powerful. Please, women deserve more then that whether they are doing it for the right or wrong reason. You can not judge. Changing that law would hurt people you probably never knew made that choice.

December 15, 2004 at 11:05 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

It's easy for a guy to say how wrong it is when they do not carry the buried of the pregnancy.Interesting that you trivialize my opinion based on the fact that I cannot carry a child. Interesting though that if I was born 8 years later, I would have likely been a abortion (as would many adoptees that I know).

You are either open mind or not. How can you say go ahead and legalize Mary-Jane but heck no you can't have an abortion. Who cares if the drug addicts crash their cars and kill people. At least we will get tax money from them.Far more accidents are caused by alcohol intoxication than drug intoxication. Secondly, there are laws to deal with people breaking traffic laws. Your point has no logic to it.

It's a free world for that but women let's lock them up barefoot.

Never said that either.

If a women is raped should she be responible for something someone else did to her? If you change the law she will be.Nope, I never said that nor do I advocate that. Abortion in cases of rape or incest would be acceptable to me.

What if the child is deformed and the quality of it's life is so bad that it will spend most of it's life in the hospital. Does that still mean the women has to carry the buried?Slippery slope argument. What if the mother decides she wants a son and not a daughter so they abort it (as they do in China)? Who are YOU to decide that life is worthless. I'm sure you'd stand up for every animal's right to exist, but an unborn child....kill it.

What if her income is so low she can not handle the medical cost? Who is responsible? Should the rest of the country pay for a life that has little to no quality since you think pro-life is the way to go?Simple solution...adoption. Now since there are so few adoptions here in the states, people are going to South America, Russia and China to adopt. Better solution still...how about birth control to begin with.

You can't say well if that's the case then it's ok but otherwise no. The laws don't work that way.All I said in my post was that IMHO abortion is wrong. I didn't expand on that idea at all. I didn't say I was passionately pro-life either.

I can't say I'm surprised to hear you are so narrow minded but you can not account for every situtation. The fact is pro-choice has some people abusing it as any open law but for you to defend something you can't truly be part of is crap. Sit this one out! Oh yeah if Gary Nolan jumped off a bridge would you? Last I heard he didn't have a uteris either!That's really an ad hominem attack. Since you make no point here, there's nothing for me to refute. I will say that I came to this conclusion on my own, and not because of Gary Nolan.

I find it hard to believe an abortion feels good. With every decision a consequence results. For whatever reason you feel it is wrong you can not truly understand the pain and struggle for many women who make these choices. We can ramble about religious beliefs and science till the day ends but you can not understand every situtation that causes the questions for the decision. You should re-think your position.Puleezze. Pain and struggle...what about the pain and struggle of a dying fetus? How about trying birth control to begin with? My issue is abortion-on-demand. It's about personal responsibility rather than taking the easy way out and killing a living being to correct for a mother's irresponsibility.

Do you really want to go back to women traveling to the darksides of town to have some half-ass doctor riping her insides out to make you feel morally powerful. Please, women deserve more then that whether they are doing it for the right or wrong reason. You can not judge. Changing that law would hurt people you probably never knew made that choice.It isn't about morals to me. It's more about natural law. It's about personal responsibility for both mother AND father.

December 15, 2004 at 7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's great that your parents made and here is the key word the CHOICE to give you life. That is the point choice. You are making an assumption on what your natural mother was thinking. Have you talked to her do you know why she made the decision. You can not say I'm sure. So to say 8 years later you wouldn't have been born is not a fair statement. Unless you talked to the source.

On the drug issues it is a fact that alcohol is a major cause of car accidents but Mary-Jane is growing in the statistics. Look into it. You'll see. The point was you are for legalizing something that harms people users and non users but your against abortion which also hurts both. What are you saying? Hurt people or don't? I can't figure it out.

"What if the child is deformed and the quality of it's life is so bad that it will spend most of it's life in the hospital. Does that still mean the women has to carry the buried?Slippery slope argument. What if the mother decides she wants a son and not a daughter so they abort it (as they do in China)? Who are YOU to decide that life is worthless. I'm sure you'd stand up for every animal's right to exist, but an unborn child....kill it."
Slippery slope I doubt it. Why do you care why they make the choices they do? All you need is to be concerned with your own decisions. If you find aborting a girl is wrong I don't see anyone making you do it. The China story is a whole new topic. Since your not from China I'm guessing you have no real understanding of why they are doing what they are doing. Plus that isn't our governement! For the record I hate tree huggers and animal nuts!
You said,"I didn't expand on that idea at all. I didn't say I was passionately pro-life either. " So why post something if you really don't care? If you have no passion for this topic shut up or grow a uterus!


I didn't say you said, "It's a free world for that but women let's lock them up barefoot." But the way you write you might as well say it. You have little respect for women and it shows.

One of my favorite issues with you pro-lifers is that you can justify abortion in special cases. Who are you to decide what is and isn't acceptable as a life decision for someone else. So if the women was raped it's ok with you? Is that what your saying? You say your not religious but you are morality judging others so why not dig out the bible and start preaching!

"Pain and struggle...what about the pain and struggle of a dying fetus? How about trying birth control to begin with? My issue is abortion-on-demand. It's about personal responsibility rather than taking the easy way out and killing a living being to correct for a mother's irresponsibility."
You are either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Now your issue is on demand abortions. Have you had an abortion? Do you know what the process is to get to the point. If you don't you should look into it. It isn't very easy you can't just drive up like McDonald's.
You made my point here. All the responsiblity is dumped on the women. She is irresponsible? What if the guy takes off the rubber? Or there is a hole in the condom. The diaphram isn't in the right spot. I can go on and on but that fact is if you don't have a uterus then you can't have an opinion. You call women irresponsible but the man has no part in making a baby. What about all the dead beat dads? Are you going to make all the men in the country support children they don't want? It's easy for you to say your against abortion when 2 people wanted you but what about all the children that are bouncing around in foster care? Who pays that bill? Oh yeah I do. I am not saying everyone should have an abortion I'm saying don't take that freedom away. The damage changing that law will do to women will be unbelievable. It would be like the dark ages for women. It takes away our right to our own body. The guy can zip up and walk away.

December 16, 2004 at 8:57 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

It's great that your parents made and here is the key word the CHOICE to give you life. That is the point choice. You are making an assumption on what your natural mother was thinking. Have you talked to her do you know why she made the decision. You can not say I'm sure. So to say 8 years later you wouldn't have been born is not a fair statement. Unless you talked to the source.Apparently you didn't read the article cited or my comments. You just decided to go on an pro-abortion rant. The Libertarian philosophy is freedom with personal responsibility so long as it doesn't intrude on the rights of another. Clearly my stance is that abortion does intrude on the right of a living human being. Whether it's born or not is irrelevant. It is alive (meets scientific definitions of a living being) and it is a human being (carries the DNA of a human). Of course, pro-abortionists would take the stance that a fetus is a parasite that should be extinguished.

My parents gave me life (by the scientific defintion stated in the article) when I was conceived, not when I was born. It is likely since it was the lovin' 60's that had abortion been legal I would have been aborted.

On the drug issues it is a fact that alcohol is a major cause of car accidents but Mary-Jane is growing in the statistics. Look into it. You'll see. The point was you are for legalizing something that harms people users and non users but your against abortion which also hurts both. What are you saying? Hurt people or don't? I can't figure it out.No, many people do drugs and alcohol and don't hurt a fly. The bottom issue is that if you break the law driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol you will be prosecuted...in particular if you hurt or kill someone. It's a free choice to do drugs/alcohol and a free choice to drive afterwards. There are consequences to those actions. Of course, the fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter and there are NO personal responsibility issues for the mother to consider by having an abortion. Besides, your argument here is a logical fallacy (false analogy)

Slippery slope I doubt it. Why do you care why they make the choices they do? All you need is to be concerned with your own decisions. If you find aborting a girl is wrong I don't see anyone making you do it. The China story is a whole new topic. Since your not from China I'm guessing you have no real understanding of why they are doing what they are doing. Plus that isn't our governement! For the record I hate tree huggers and animal nuts!It certainly is a slippery slope. People are already making decisions regarding abortion based on amniocentisis(sp?). China was an example of where we're heading...or would you prefer the Netherlands where euthenasia is legal. Let me make an argument for you. Say you don't have a living will. Say you get into a car accident and go into a coma. You're no longer on life support and doctors feel that there's little chance for you to come out of it. So your family decides to disconnect your feeding tube. You whither and die. You MAY have come out of it, but you didn't HAVE the choice. Much like a fetus.

You said,"I didn't expand on that idea at all. I didn't say I was passionately pro-life either. " So why post something if you really don't care? If you have no passion for this topic shut up or grow a uterus!You can't define right or wrong based on the sex of an individual. All I said was that it was my belief based on the issues I raised above that abortion was wrong.

I didn't say you said, "It's a free world for that but women let's lock them up barefoot." But the way you write you might as well say it. You have little respect for women and it shows.HA! Your argument here is laughable. You've been taught that abortion the cornerstone to empowerment of women. That your RIGHTS as an empowered woman include abortion. Forget equality in the workplace, or any other hundreds of strides women have made in the last 50 years...it all comes down to abortion!

One of my favorite issues with you pro-lifers is that you can justify abortion in special cases. Who are you to decide what is and isn't acceptable as a life decision for someone else. So if the women was raped it's ok with you? Is that what your saying? You say your not religious but you are morality judging others so why not dig out the bible and start preaching!I believe the ONLY reason that pro-lifers take this stance is through compassion to the victim. Abortion is still killing a living being no matter what whacked out circumstance you can tie to it.

You are either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Now your issue is on demand abortions. Have you had an abortion? Do you know what the process is to get to the point. If you don't you should look into it. It isn't very easy you can't just drive up like McDonald's.
You made my point here. All the responsiblity is dumped on the women. She is irresponsible? What if the guy takes off the rubber? Or there is a hole in the condom. The diaphram isn't in the right spot. I can go on and on but that fact is if you don't have a uterus then you can't have an opinion. You call women irresponsible but the man has no part in making a baby. What about all the dead beat dads? Are you going to make all the men in the country support children they don't want? It's easy for you to say your against abortion when 2 people wanted you but what about all the children that are bouncing around in foster care? Who pays that bill? Oh yeah I do. I am not saying everyone should have an abortion I'm saying don't take that freedom away. The damage changing that law will do to women will be unbelievable. It would be like the dark ages for women. It takes away our right to our own body. The guy can zip up and walk away.
Again, you can't define right and wrong in terms of men or women. It's either right or wrong. Besides, I doublt if a majority of women came out against abortion you'd change your mind. Keep continuing your Straw Man arguments, it's fun for me. In terms of responsibility it's both parent's responsibility but should you have sex one of the possible outcomes is pregnancy. The father should be responsible as should the mother. Deadbeat dads most certainly should be held accountable and Michigan has made great strides in doing so. If they choose to dump that responsbilility, than put the child up for adoption. The "unviable tissue mass" that you advocate killing could be then next Steve Jobs, Alexander the Great, Halle Berry or Ray Liotta (all adoptees).

Your defense of abortion though passionate, has not refuted any of issues raised by my post or article. Try making a logical argument in defense of your position or directly refuting my statements in my post rather than resorting to the old tired pro-abortion filled-with-illogic arguments.

Thanks for playing, please try again...and I think I know who you are....and I thought you hated politics (and reading my blog).

December 16, 2004 at 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 17, 2004 at 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If men could get pregnant, abortion would not be a hot topic for debate. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a right, period. End of discussion.

December 17, 2004 at 9:51 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

If men could get pregnant, abortion would not be a hot topic for debate. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a right, period. End of discussion.Hardly. You have yet to refute any of the arguments stated in my post. All you've done is rant on with your pro-abortion rhetoric. Someday, you'll learn to make an argument and the house-of-cards that you base your arguments on will fall. It's either right or wrong and your sex has little to do with it.

Unless you have a logical argument, you're rhetoric here will continually be torn to shreds.

Thanks for playing and please try again.

December 17, 2004 at 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get a life, Dude.

December 18, 2004 at 8:55 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

My life is fine the way it is, thank you very much.

Typical response because you can't make a logical argument.

Get a job.

December 18, 2004 at 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears that you are confusing me with another blogger. Doesn't matter. The fact is that you have issues with women and this blog was put out here for me.
"Play again" you are so short sighted and a hurtful person. Your points are simply opinion based on your gift of life and guess what my points are based on my life too. Shocker right? That is why fighting your crazy "logic" on politic is pointless. You need to learn some respect for others and their beliefs. Till then you are just as annoying as a Jehovah's Witness banging at someone door at 8:00 a.m. in the morning trying to change everyone into something they don't wish to be.

December 20, 2004 at 11:07 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

No, I don't have issues with women...well some women...Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, my now-bitter psycho ex-girlfriend, but that's besides the point. You obviously cannot craft any sort of logical argument which is par for the course...otherwise you would attempt to refute me...maybe it's because you're outmatched when it comes to making an intelligent argument. I figured as much...

Unless you can directly refute my original premise, you're wasting your breath with your mindless rhetoric. Of course you say it's a cold, callousness on my part...yadda, yadda, yadda...but you can't refute my logic directly. It isn't that it's a waste of time, it's basically that you can't handle it...

December 20, 2004 at 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I simply decided to tell you what I thought of your opinion. Call me psycho if you wish but your stand is a side a simply blog /thought / opinion. One person can see it as fact another as a theory. You can try and draw a line at what point you consider acceptable behavior of a society and what is gasping wrong in your mind. Each and everyone one of us is brought up with rules and laws that mold our thought process. Who is to decide which is which? Your facts I have heard before but what makes those facts determining right and wrong.?? The argument is too different, one side is fighting for something that can't fight and the other side is fighting for a right. Apples and Oranges. Without having all the parts (uterus) you can not honestly give a fair argument. If a women is pro-Life I can accept it but here is the big picture. She can have that child no one is forcing her to change her decision. But a pro-choicer is being told (if, religious nuts haven't done enough damage) that they are bad people for even wanting the choice. Pro-choicer's say have that baby if you want but don't push your beliefs on everyone. Since everyones life is different who is to determine who is right. I know that isn't a fact but it is what America is about, freedom. You don't have to agree but you should try to accept others needs.
As a Libertarian I thought you of all people could see more then the average joe but you have proven your lack of ability to accept something you can not control. Abortion whether any man likes it or not is truly a woman's freedom/law/fight however you wish to view it.
That fetus is dependent on the mother to survive till a point and if it can not stand on it's own then it is forced to go in the direct of it's host. right or wrong if you wish to look at it that way. The host or women should have the right to choice what is going to happen to her body or not. Whether you deem her decision as right or wrong can not be your choice since you can not bare the buried the women carries all on her own. If you wish to look at this as fact you must respect that a women should make this choice. The fact is she has the responsiblity you said it yourself. The woman is responsible. If the women is responsible for the buried of proper birth control then she is responsible for the buried of carrying the fetus. If she is responsible then in all honestly you can not expect a women to leave the most life changing decision to a man. Women can not help that they bare children as much as men do not but we can choose how to handle responsiblities life hands us. Whether we have the child, abort it or give it up for adoption. Defend your right for life but you can not make exception to rules (if she was raped etc.) and if you do you create these exceptions then understand that people will be accused of rape even if it wasn't. To get the medical needs they want. Overturning Roe vs Wade will create many new issues you are not considering. If you can not see that in the future you are very narrow minded.
By all means go to the polls and take you best shot at turning Roe vs Wade. I'll be at the polls along with many women fighting for the right to choice.
On a personal note:
You need to stop fighting about topics for the sake of fighting. As a women this is my topic not yours. Also you have not out smarted me on this you are just limiting your understanding based on personal experience and an age old argument. Everyone does it from time to time but try not to stand on a soapbox when it is clearly marked for a women.

If I'm so dumb why do I have my piece of paper and you don't?

December 21, 2004 at 11:56 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

The bottom line here is that for all of your rhetoric, you STILL have not refuted my premise. Until you go back up to the original post and refute my premise, all of your current arguments are null and void. The only arguments you have made (which aren't valid arguments) is that 1) Men cannot make a decision because they don't have a uterus; 2) That abortion is not a matter of right or wrong, but it's the RIGHT of all women. The essential message of your arguments is that abortion is a convenience...it has little to do with right and wrong (since you haven't attacked my intial premise yet). Right or wrong doesn't matter in your view...only the "right" of convenience.

Libertarians are all for the individual doing whatever, so long as those rights don't infringe on another. Based on my premise, abortion IS infringing on the life of another.

If my premise is correct, then abortion is wrong (and obviously I believe it is). It doesn't matter if you're man, woman or child, it would be wrong according to our Constitution (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness). It is the denial of life and a violation of our essential rights as Americans.

The issue of responsibility that you bring up is an interesting one. Since the advent of the pill, abortion, and the sexual revolution; illegitimacy has skyrocketed as well as single motherhood. Women took on these "rights" but you reject the responsibilities inherent with any right.

Since my opinion differs from yours, you attack me and my arguments with a number logical fallacies: ad hominem attacks, appeals to pity, appeals to motive (popularity and consequences), and straw man arguments. If you keep it up, you'll have covered every logical fallacy in your arguments. Each scenario you have created is meaningless as you have yet to attack my premise. It is YOU that don't have an open mind. You act like abortion is an empowerment of women, while ignoring the essential argument. What if you're wrong? What if it is life?

As for your piece of paper...that has more to do with commitment to get a degree than intelligence...and I salute your commitment. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Albert Einstein either never finished college or never went to college begin with. Despite your piece of paper, you obviously never had a logic class or learned how to argue a point effectively.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

December 22, 2004 at 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The right-to-life issue is also related to how one views the definition of life. Some possess the view that life begins at conception. These people, or course, are the ones who shout about "right-to-life", morals, sexual promiscuity, sexual responsiblity, sexual diseases, etc. However, there are others who believe that life begins when the human being can live independently outside of the host. These are the people who believe in the "right to choose". Logically speaking, if a being's life is totally dependent on another human being's life (as is a fetus to its host), the being does not have the same rights as the host. Are you really going to say a 2-month-old being, who cannot breathe and take nourishment without its host has all of the rights of human beings that can independently function outside the body of a host? No, you cannot. Granting full rights to a fetus at the expense of the host's rights makes no sense. That fetus's well-being depends wholly on its host. If the host dies, the being dies. Therefore, the host has complete control of the well-being of the fetus. If the host has complete control of the well-being of the fetus, how is it that others can then say that it is not up to the host to abort the fetus? How can a fetus's life depend wholly on the host on the one hand, then depend on the right-to-lifers on the other?

What it boils down to is: How do you define when life begins? Yes, scientists say that life begins when the sperm penetrates the egg. That is a literal definition. The bacteria in my bathroom is also defined as "alive" but I'm not going to consider giving it rights. The "life" of a united sperm and egg is not the same as the "life" of a person outside of the womb.

I find it curious that you have issues with Hilary and the wife of John Kerry. Somehow, that is not surprising. These are strong FEMALE role models with intelligence, common sense, and education who speak out for the rights of people. Hmmmm. Let's see. Let's take the right to choose away from the woman as well as get rid of all the strong FEMALE role models. I know, let's take the right to vote away from women!
I see a trend, here.

December 22, 2004 at 8:19 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Congrats on your attempt to make an argument. Unfortunately, your arguments are very weak which I will show.

"The right-to-life issue is also related to how one views the definition of life. Some possess the view that life begins at conception. These people, or course, are the ones who shout about "right-to-life", morals, sexual promiscuity, sexual responsiblity, sexual diseases, etc. However, there are others who believe that life begins when the human being can live independently outside of the host. These are the people who believe in the "right to choose". Logically speaking, if a being's life is totally dependent on another human being's life (as is a fetus to its host), the being does not have the same rights as the host. Are you really going to say a 2-month-old being, who cannot breathe and take nourishment without its host has all of the rights of human beings that can independently function outside the body of a host? No, you cannot. Granting full rights to a fetus at the expense of the host's rights makes no sense. That fetus's well-being depends wholly on its host. If the host dies, the being dies. Therefore, the host has complete control of the well-being of the fetus. If the host has complete control of the well-being of the fetus, how is it that others can then say that it is not up to the host to abort the fetus? How can a fetus's life depend wholly on the host on the one hand, then depend on the right-to-lifers on the other?"

You state that a human being can live independently outside the host is when life begins? Interesting, you call it a human being before it is "born". You didn't say it isn't a human being until after it's outside the mother. You basically concede that a fetus is a human being (based on my original point). Secondly, you state that the human being can live independently outside the host. On what planet do you live? Even an infant needs an inordinate amount of car to survive. Feeding, bathing, changing diapers, etc. Leave an infant alone for a day or two and the infant will die. The infant is in complete control of the mother and is dependent on the mother for care and life. Again you say "Logically speaking, if a being's life is totally dependent on another human being's life (as is a fetus to its host), the being does not have the same rights as the host." By your rationale , anyone who is totally dependent on another human being's life is not worthy of life. So you advocate killing people with Alzheimer's, multiple Sclerosis, quadruplegics, and anyone that is totally dependent on someone else's life. In your logic and by your definition, those people aren't worthy of life and don't have any "rights."

"What it boils down to is: How do you define when life begins? Yes, scientists say that life begins when the sperm penetrates the egg. That is a literal definition. The bacteria in my bathroom is also defined as "alive" but I'm not going to consider giving it rights. The "life" of a united sperm and egg is not the same as the "life" of a person outside of the womb."

So far you've conceded that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) it is alive. What it really boils down to what you consider worthy of life. In your estimation, despite the fact that it 1) is a unique human being and 2) it is alive; it is not worthy of life...and it's no better than bacteria. To boil down the essentials of your argument, it's a matter of convenience for the "host". Interesting that you consider a mother carrying a child a "host". I'm sure you think of the fetus as a parasite to be wiped out. That's a great attitude for any prospective mother to have. Throughout history, killers have dehumanized their victims in order to make it easier for others to kill and accept killing. To you pregnancy is a matter of convenience. If it's convenient for someone to have a child then go for it, if it's inconvenient, kill it.

"I find it curious that you have issues with Hilary and the wife of John Kerry. Somehow, that is not surprising. These are strong FEMALE role models with intelligence, common sense, and education who speak out for the rights of people. Hmmmm. Let's see. Let's take the right to choose away from the woman as well as get rid of all the strong FEMALE role models. I know, let's take the right to vote away from women!
I see a trend, here."

Of course, I have issues with LIBERAL women. If you're talking strong women, how about Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, and Elizabeth Dole. I take issue is with LIBERAL women, not Conservative women. Liberals are illogical and are unable to make a logical argument...all they can do is spout rhetoric...something you've done very well regarding this issue.

Thanks for playing and please try again.

December 23, 2004 at 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response. Your response further strengthened my suspions that you are very narrow-minded. Like all narrow-minded and "know it all's" you twist my words around until you can get a meaning from it to which you can respond.

I never conceded that a fetus is a human being. I never said that human beings who cannot function without another's person assistance do not have a worthy life.

The main point is that you cannot refute or logically tell me why a 4-week embryo has as many rights as a baby, child, or adult who is outside, in the world, living. You cannot compare an embryo, tucked inside another person, the same as an invalid on life-support. Very literally, an invalid's aid or helper could die and the invalid would be okay if he found someone else to assist him. The invalid is not depending on his helper to the same extent as does
the embryo depend on the body that hosts it. And, you know it. This is the first time I've ever heard a comparision between an embryo and its mother as compared to an invalid and his caretakers. Where did that come from??? The link between embryo and mother, the ultimate dependency for existence, cannot be described in this space to give it justice. If the host dies, the baby dies. That is it. ("Host", in no way, defines the embryo as a parasite. That is your own mentality, not mine. That's something you threw out to distract from the main point. Check your nearest dictionary, please).

In conclusion, please read my comments again and try to respond in like fashion. Or, just go back to school. Thank you and please try again.

December 24, 2004 at 11:54 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

"Thank you for your response. Your response further strengthened my suspions that you are very narrow-minded. Like all narrow-minded and "know it all's" you twist my words around until you can get a meaning from it to which you can respond."

Of course, people like yourself consider any differing viewpoint as narrow-minded while simultaneously being unable to defend your point-of-view.

"I never conceded that a fetus is a human being. I never said that human beings who cannot function without another's person assistance do not have a worthy life."

What is a fetus? A chicken? A fish? A gorilla? It is encoded by DNA upon conception as a human being. And you most certainly did say that one that is dependent on another is not worthy of rights: "Logically speaking, if a being's life is totally dependent on another human being's life (as is a fetus to its host), the being does not have the same rights as the host." Your words, not mine.

"Very literally, an invalid's aid or helper could die and the invalid would be okay if he found someone else to assist him. The invalid is not depending on his helper to the same extent as does
the embryo depend on the body that hosts it"

Oh, so now once your faulty logic is exposed, you choose to put if conditions on it? The invalid is still totally dependent on other human beings, much like a fetus. There's no guarantee that the invalid (in your faulty logic) will have another care-giver.

"This is the first time I've ever heard a comparision between an embryo and its mother as compared to an invalid and his caretakers. Where did that come from??"

It was an extension of the logic you posted. Using your definition and carrying it over to other situations.

"The link between embryo and mother, the ultimate dependency for existence, cannot be described in this space to give it justice. If the host dies, the baby dies. That is it. ("Host", in no way, defines the embryo as a parasite. That is your own mentality, not mine. That's something you threw out to distract from the main point. Check your nearest dictionary, please)."

From Wikipedia: "In biology, a host is an organism that harbors a parasite, mutual partner, or commensal partner, typically providing nourishment and shelter. A host can also refer to a cell infected by a virus." That wasn't a distraction, but was your viewpoint. An embryo/fetus, which 1) is alive and 2) is a unique human being has no value to the mother (again, an interesting point-of-view for a prospective mother). That is precisely how you look at it.

Once again in your viewpoint, the only rights a fetus has is conferred by the mother as a matter of convenience to the mother.

"In conclusion, please read my comments again and try to respond in like fashion. Or, just go back to school. Thank you and please try again."

I did respond to your comments again in a logical manner. If I responded in a like manner I'd start spouting illogical rhetoric. If you go back to school, please take a logic class.

Secondly, though I haven't finished my 4 year degree, this dicussion has proven a few things to me. One, that I'm more intelligent than you and always will be despite any college education you possess as intelligence is both inherited and a product of early education. Two, that despite my lack of formal education, I read and comprehend much more than you (and more quickly). Three, that I will always make more money than you because I am more driven to success and not excuses.

The most beautiful thing about it is that once I finish my degree (now that I'm enrolled again) I have a degree and I'll still be more intelligent than you.

Thanks for playing and please try again. Of course, you could go back to the trailer you grew up in and forget attempting to argue a battle of wits with me...because your way overmatched and underqualified.

December 27, 2004 at 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 28, 2004 at 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will only say one thing since you tend to get distracted with paragraphs and seem to lose sight of the topic. Answer this: Would you be willing to sacrifice your rights for a 4-week-old embryo?

December 28, 2004 at 2:36 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

"Wow your a total ass. More then half the comments are not mine including the last one. I do see it as a parasite/host situtation so whatever."

Thank you, coming from you that's a compliment. The comments I quoted were yours from earlier comments. I didn't make them up out of thin air. So if a fetus is a parasite then it's a unique living being. As it is a human being by virtue of its DNA then it is entitled to the same rights as any human being.

"So it's easy to sit and judge someone or something when you will never be faced with that decision. Embroyo fetus parasite whatever the fact is the mother host whatever you wish to name them boils down to one thing. One is totally dependent on the other. The responsiblity is not transferrable like a ill adult. So unless you can carry the responsiblity you really have not rights to agrue this topic."

Your rhetoric on gender is irrelevant. Why? Because right and wrong is not gender-specific. My contention is that a fetus is a unique human being and it is alive. As a fetus meets those qualifications then the rights of every human being applies. Nothing you have said has weakened that argument.

"I will only say one thing since you tend to get distracted with paragraphs and seem to lose sight of the topic. Answer this: Would you be willing to sacrifice your rights for a 4-week-old embryo?"

First of all, you have yet to make a valid argument and I've quickly exposed the flaws in your arguments. So I am not the one that is distracted. Despite your boringly repetitive rhetoric, you have yet to even try to weaken my arguments with any sort of logic.

To answer your question. What rights are you speaking of? What rights would anyone be sacrificing for an embryo? Can you even define the rights that a mother gives up by having a child? The only right that abortion allows somebody is the denial of responsibility. Abortion is a choice of convenience. Yet another statement you are unable to rebut.

It is really inconceivable to me that a prospective mother could look at life so callously. To grant a right (especially one not in the Constitution) to one human being at the expense of another is a travesty in my opinion.

To rebut your argument for my lack of a 4-year degree. It was never a requirement for any profession I was in. As I didn't need it, I didn't value a college education. However, I will say that there's NO way you have any more book smarts than I do. I read a new book on the average of one every 2 weeks on a variety of topics...and I understand that which likely bores you. I'm not going back to school because I have to...but because I want to.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

December 28, 2004 at 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What rights are we speaking of when I ask if you would give up your rights to a 4-week-old embryo? Somehow, you cease to surprise me. With all of your, "I'm so intelligent. I am totally logical. I know all of the facts. I didn't finnish college but I am smart anyway, blah, blah, blah", you cannot identify which rights are being sacrificed for a 4-week-old embryo? Well, we'll take it slow...

If abortion becomes illegal, the woman who becomes pregnant is required to forego her rights in favor of a fetus (whatever age). The woman with the 4-week-old fetus is giving up her right to vote (it's not a topic of debate if abortion is illegal), she gives up the right to control her own body and her own life. Her freedom of speech is limited because sure, she has the right to say she wants an abortion but her words carry no weight since the law is the law. If she desires an abortion but cannot get one she is giving up her right to pursue happiness. As she forgoes her rights, these rights are transferred to the 4-week embryo. The embryo now has control over the mother's right to her body. The embryo has more voting rights than the adult. (Obviously, the fetus would vote pro-life). The fetus, the 4-week-old mass of cells, has constitutional rights over the person. In effect, the rights of the mother are sacrificed for the baby.

Pregnancy is a giant sacrifice--which you would not know since you are a narrow-minded male without a uterus-- and the woman's physical and emotional life as well as her way of life is greatly impacted forever.
Sacrificing for a new life is the greatest gift a mother can give to her baby, if she chooses to.

Pro-lifers, like you, obviously don't see how the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are voided when these rights are transferred to a mass of cells. Somehow, I cannot see you giving up your rights for a 4-week-old mass of cells. That, plainly, does not make sense. I'm sure you'll come back roaring how smart you are and everything else. (Me thinks you protest too much). For all of your words, their meanings get lost as the quality of your character shines through. Your simplistic definition of abortion (as a way to avoid responsibility) misses so many points and humanistic issues that it weakens your credibility. You still have not convinced me why a 4-week mass of cells should have rights over a person.

December 29, 2004 at 7:50 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

"What rights are we speaking of when I ask if you would give up your rights to a 4-week-old embryo? Somehow, you cease to surprise me. With all of your, "I'm so intelligent. I am totally logical. I know all of the facts. I didn't finnish college but I am smart anyway, blah, blah, blah", you cannot identify which rights are being sacrificed for a 4-week-old embryo? Well, we'll take it slow..."

Finnish? Are those colleges in Finland? As funny as it seems, people like you have motivated me to finish my degree. Because if someone who can't understand basic logic can graduate college then certainly someone with an IQ of 130 can graduate college. Secondly, my question was a rhetorical one...but that type of subtlety is likely over your head.

"If abortion becomes illegal, the woman who becomes pregnant is required to forego her rights in favor of a fetus (whatever age). The woman with the 4-week-old fetus is giving up her right to vote (it's not a topic of debate if abortion is illegal), she gives up the right to control her own body and her own life. Her freedom of speech is limited because sure, she has the right to say she wants an abortion but her words carry no weight since the law is the law. If she desires an abortion but cannot get one she is giving up her right to pursue happiness. As she forgoes her rights, these rights are transferred to the 4-week embryo. The embryo now has control over the mother's right to her body. The embryo has more voting rights than the adult. (Obviously, the fetus would vote pro-life). The fetus, the 4-week-old mass of cells, has constitutional rights over the person. In effect, the rights of the mother are sacrificed for the baby."

Rights? You still have not refuted my premise. I have repeatedly stated the premise yet you have insisted on going back to the rhetoric of "The Mother's Rights." All you have done is show how shallow and illogical your arguments are by your failure to refute my premise. For example, a woman's voting rights are irrelevant and yet another logical fallacy. Your argument here does nothing to weaken my premise. Your continues use of Ad nauseam, Straw Man, Slippery Slope, Red Herring, Appeal to Popularlity are all logical fallacies you've used. I invite anyone to come to my blog and attack my arguments logically, but you are unable to do so. I'd highly recommend taking a logic class or doing some online research to understand how to make a logical argument. The premise in my inital post was defined simply so anyone could understand. Yet you cannot refute the premise.

"Pregnancy is a giant sacrifice--which you would not know since you are a narrow-minded male without a uterus-- and the woman's physical and emotional life as well as her way of life is greatly impacted forever.
Sacrificing for a new life is the greatest gift a mother can give to her baby, if she chooses to. "

Again, irrelevant as it does nothing to weaken my premise. As a father and an adoptee I well know the sacrifices of a parent as well as the great unselfish sacrifice my natural mother made to give me up for adoption.

"Pro-lifers, like you, obviously don't see how the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are voided when these rights are transferred to a mass of cells. Somehow, I cannot see you giving up your rights for a 4-week-old mass of cells. That, plainly, does not make sense. I'm sure you'll come back roaring how smart you are and everything else. (Me thinks you protest too much). For all of your words, their meanings get lost as the quality of your character shines through. Your simplistic definition of abortion (as a way to avoid responsibility) misses so many points and humanistic issues that it weakens your credibility. You still have not convinced me why a 4-week mass of cells should have rights over a person."

All irrelevant arguments as you have STILL said nothing to refute my premise. It isn't as you say "an unviable tissue mass." It is 1) a unique human being based on the DNA from the point of conception and 2) A fetus is alive. So we have a unique human being which is alive that you want the "right" to kill at the expense of the rights of the living unique human being.

I invite anyone to come here and refute my arguments...I enjoy the mental exercise. My 11 year-old son would probably do a better job using logic to attack an argument than your tired ad nauseam arguments.

At this point, unless you can attempt to refute my premise, I will not respond to any future comments from you and will delete them.

Please refute my premise directly using logic or MoveOn.org.

Thanks for playing and please try again...and have a nice day.

December 30, 2004 at 12:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 4, 2005 at 10:52 AM  

<< Home