I have a question for Atlas's pro-lifers..

[12th Doctor]

Now I know that most pro-life people are like "life starts at conception". So what happens in the event of a miscarriage? so does the woman go to hell for "murdering her baby"? After all if life begins at conception a miscarried fetus DOEs have a soul...

The Catholic belief is that non-baptised children go to purgatory, that would include miscarriages. The woman certainly wouldn't be held responsible for the death.

Ummm... no.  What are you smoking.  The Catholic belief never officially endorse the idea of what was once called "Limbo" that was a myth that was made up by some narrow minded preists and was never cannonical.  The Church didn't even officially address the issue until Vatican II, when they said, unequivically, that unborn babies go to Heaven if they die, as there is no offense they could commit that a just God would find reason to punish.


And the idea that the Church things the woman is morally responsible is SO laughable that I won't even address it.

[12th Doctor]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

To be honest, I care more about what is acctually right than what is fair.  Do I think it is fair that I woman have the "right" to an abortion if raped?  Yes.  Do I think its right?  No.

Life is life, regardless of the circumstances underwhich it came about.  Not that religion is the only weapon I have in this fight, but I take note of what Pope Paul VI said on the matter... simply put, all life exists only through God.  A "testtube" baby is still a life, with a soul, as it has all the properties required of a human, and such creation can only happen if God either causes or allows it to happen.  Similarly, though I don't endorse cloning, as I think it opens a whole host of problems issues, I would see a clone as being a life, with all the rights and properties of a human life, including a soul.  If you take two clones and raise them seperately, with different expiriences, then they would be different people.  Individuals of themselves.  Even if you were to raise them together, and they turned out more or less the same, that doesn't change.

In law, the Constitutional definition of person (which is to say, someone who enjoys all the rights of a person) has changed quite a bit over the years to include blacks, indians, women... I see no reason it shoudl not include the unborn, and until you can provide reason otherwise, I will remain unconvinced.  I am perfectly content, the burden of proof is on you.

In a larger sense, people don't have rights because a government grants them.  The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that that is the founding principle of our country.  They have rights because they are human beings.  A principle Liberals used to hold dear until they got caught up in the red tape of legalism and narrowed their scope to include only the court room.

[Ebowed]

I see no reason it shoudl not include the unborn, and until you can provide reason otherwise, I will remain unconvinced.  I am perfectly content, the burden of proof is on you.

Generally, the burden of proof rests on one who seeks a change in the status quo.

[12th Doctor]

I see no reason it shoudl not include the unborn, and until you can provide reason otherwise, I will remain unconvinced.  I am perfectly content, the burden of proof is on you.

The point is that
Generally, the burden of proof rests on one who seeks a change in the status quo.

Well, people once demanded proof that Blacks were not inferior to whites, before they would accept that whites didn't have the right to own blacks, but that's not the point.

I agree with you, the burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo... if one looks at the last 50 or so years that countries have accepted abortion as legal, it's just a blink of the eye compared to the thousands of years on human history in which an unborn person was considered to be an individual, with rights, by almost all human civilizations.  In many civilizations, it was considered murder to kill a fetus.  Killing a pregnant woman was considered double murder.  In ancient Chinese (and other African and Asian cultures) it was, and acctually still is, practice to count someone's age from the time of conception.  Literature accross culutres is full of references to unborn persons being persons.

Roe vs Wade and similar rulings are what changed a long standing status quo in the name of "privacy".  Little attention was ever paid to the notion of disproving that an unborn person had rights, and the issue was mostly ignored, until the anti-abotion crowd began to seriously look into the legality of the issue and not just thump the Bible.

Liberals, for their part, have yet to organize a coherant response to these concerns, simple stating "IT A WOMAN'S RIGHT".  "ITS ABOUT PRIVACY".  They have no legal argument, other than Roe, which itself flew blatantly in the face of precident, both in US Law and in comparison to the long standing thoughts of humanity up until that point.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

THe values of places change based on technology and other factors. Using the 'but every past civilization did it that way" opens a path for things like supporting slavery because "that's how it was done". I'd prefer not to go down that road.

[Friz]

I see no reason it shoudl not include the unborn, and until you can provide reason otherwise, I will remain unconvinced.  I am perfectly content, the burden of proof is on you.

The point is that
Generally, the burden of proof rests on one who seeks a change in the status quo.

Well, people once demanded proof that Blacks were not inferior to whites, before they would accept that whites didn't have the right to own blacks, but that's not the point.

I agree with you, the burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo... if one looks at the last 50 or so years that countries have accepted abortion as legal, it's just a blink of the eye compared to the thousands of years on human history in which an unborn person was considered to be an individual, with rights, by almost all human civilizations.  In many civilizations, it was considered murder to kill a fetus.  Killing a pregnant woman was considered double murder.  In ancient Chinese (and other African and Asian cultures) it was, and acctually still is, practice to count someone's age from the time of conception.  Literature accross culutres is full of references to unborn persons being persons.

Roe vs Wade and similar rulings are what changed a long standing status quo in the name of "privacy".  Little attention was ever paid to the notion of disproving that an unborn person had rights, and the issue was mostly ignored, until the anti-abotion crowd began to seriously look into the legality of the issue and not just thump the Bible.

Liberals, for their part, have yet to organize a coherant response to these concerns, simple stating "IT A WOMAN'S RIGHT".  "ITS ABOUT PRIVACY".  They have no legal argument, other than Roe, which itself flew blatantly in the face of precident, both in US Law and in comparison to the long standing thoughts of humanity up until that point.

The comparison to white supremacy is ridiculous.  In case you didn't know, that type of behavior was directed at people well outside the first trimester.

I personally don't like abortion, but that doesn't mean I want those rights revoked.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

And they're aren't more unstable b/c they were impregnated - you missed my point.

Women who get abortions after being raped are normally more unstable than those who have the baby.

[Bacon King]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

And they're aren't more unstable b/c they were impregnated - you missed my point.

Women who get abortions after being raped are normally more unstable than those who have the baby.

Why does stability have any relevance?

[Verily]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

And they're aren't more unstable b/c they were impregnated - you missed my point.

Women who get abortions after being raped are normally more unstable than those who have the baby.

Correlation DNI causation. Perhaps those who chose to abort the baby are generally those whose rape was particularly violent or scarring.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

And they're aren't more unstable b/c they were impregnated - you missed my point.

Women who get abortions after being raped are normally more unstable than those who have the baby.

Correlation DNI causation. Perhaps those who chose to abort the baby are generally those whose rape was particularly violent or scarring.

Right. That said do we REALLY want to force women who were violently raped to carry the rapist's child to term? If you want a surefire recipe for making sure a kid turns out badly do that. If the goal is the greater good for the most people I'd go with not banning abortion in that case(I'm sure an outcome where the potential mother is able to recover normally is better to anyone rational than one where a mentally unstable woman is forced to raise an unwanted child).

[Person Man]

It's not just their wishing to change the status quo that offends me, it is their ignorance of due process. They claim their is a person and that a person is being killed by abortion without objectively proing it beyond a reasonable doubt and there is obviously reasonable doubt at this point. That's why these anti-choicers simply lack civic virtue and are more interested in fmaking people more likely to convert to fundamentalism or catholicism by having the police enforce their theology than the public good....and abortion in history is mixed. Classical Civilizations usually favored it. Confucianism usually was supportive of it. Judaism was mixed, Christianity was mostly opposed, but there was always some dissent on abortion within the church, Islam was about the same as Christianity, the animists were mostly opposed as well as the ancient Persians. Hinduism and Buddhism were opposed at first, but they are begining to shift. The point is that there is no universal natural right for a fetus not be aborted because there is and always has been, and continues to be a reasonable doubt.

[Flying Dog]

It's not just their wishing to change the status quo that offends me, it is their ignorance of due process. They claim their is a person and that a person is being killed by abortion without objectively proing it beyond a reasonable doubt and there is obviously reasonable doubt at this point. That's why these anti-choicers simply lack civic virtue and are more interested in fmaking people more likely to convert to fundamentalism or catholicism by having the police enforce their theology than the public good....and abortion in history is mixed. Classical Civilizations usually favored it. Confucianism usually was supportive of it. Judaism was mixed, Christianity was mostly opposed, but there was always some dissent on abortion within the church, Islam was about the same as Christianity, the animists were mostly opposed as well as the ancient Persians. Hinduism and Buddhism were opposed at first, but they are begining to shift. The point is that there is no universal natural right for a fetus not be aborted because there is and always has been, and continues to be a reasonable doubt.

Definition of crap

[Ebowed]

Definition of crap

Typical pro-life argument.

[Friz]

Definition of crap

Typical pro-life argument.

[Person Man]

Yeah, seriously. He provides no evidence for his case and we have moral obligation to protect ourselves from those who lack this civil virtue as expressed in their inability to argue for the public good.

[nclib]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

EVEN IF the fetus has rights, the woman did not choose for the fetus to enter her body, so EVEN IF she didn't have the right to abort otherwise, in this case it would be self-defense.

[Flying Dog]

It's not just their wishing to change the status quo that offends me, it is their ignorance of due process. They claim their is a person and that a person is being killed by abortion without objectively proing it beyond a reasonable doubt and there is obviously reasonable doubt at this point. That's why these anti-choicers simply lack civic virtue and are more interested in fmaking people more likely to convert to fundamentalism or catholicism by having the police enforce their theology than the public good....and abortion in history is mixed. Classical Civilizations usually favored it. Confucianism usually was supportive of it. Judaism was mixed, Christianity was mostly opposed, but there was always some dissent on abortion within the church, Islam was about the same as Christianity, the animists were mostly opposed as well as the ancient Persians. Hinduism and Buddhism were opposed at first, but they are begining to shift. The point is that there is no universal natural right for a fetus not be aborted because there is and always has been, and continues to be a reasonable doubt.

I'll try to refute this so-called "argument". Although it is hard to counter something that is baseless as this.

Why should trying to change the "status quo" so offending to you? What's wrong with wanting change?

Just because a human life hasn't reached a stage to satisfy your definition of life doesn't mean we have the right to discriminate against them and treat them as nothing important. That lacks civility, not my position.
You also lack civility by categorizing me as a fundamentalist who only wages this issue to turn people to catholicism. Sorry, but thats completely idiotic.
I believe in this because I respect the sanctity of life.

Confucianism-Wasn't in favor, just left it up to the parents. They had no position on it.
Judaism-Conservative elements opposed;Liberal elements said there was no soul in the first 40 days of the pregnancy.

Protestantism-90% opposed but there are fringe groups who support abortion rights

Buddism- Against

This is not an legal argument to be waged in a courtroom. It is a moral issue that is waged inside the hearts and minds of people. Its just wrong. Plain and simple. Should be wrong whether or not your religious or not.

[Ebowed]

Protestantism-90% opposed but there are fringe groups who support abortion rights

Where are you getting these numbers?  They're complete nonsense.  More than 10% of Protestants support abortion rights.  Why do you think at least 45%+ of the US is pro-choice?

Anyway, if abortion is wrong regardless of whether you're religious, consider that polling indicates that up to 75% of American agnostics and atheists are pro-choice, indicating that many pro-life arguments are theological, and not scientific.  Regardless, many non-religious people may personally oppose abortion, but do not feel the need to legislate their beliefs on others, which is the central focus of this entire debate.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

And they're aren't more unstable b/c they were impregnated - you missed my point.

Women who get abortions after being raped are normally more unstable than those who have the baby.

Why does stability have any relevance?

Because you guys have "the best interest of the woman" in mind.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

EVEN IF the fetus has rights, the woman did not choose for the fetus to enter her body, so EVEN IF she didn't have the right to abort otherwise, in this case it would be self-defense.

Self Defense!  Come on - against a baby!  The baby can't help it.  That's like you saying that a bully pushes a kid onto another kid, and the kid who got fallen onto punches the kid who was bullied in "self defense" - it's not the kid's fault he fell, it's the bully's.

[Flying Dog]

Protestantism-90% opposed but there are fringe groups who support abortion rights

Where are you getting these numbers?  They're complete nonsense.  More than 10% of Protestants support abortion rights.  Why do you think at least 45%+ of the US is pro-choice?

Anyway, if abortion is wrong regardless of whether you're religious, consider that polling indicates that up to 75% of American agnostics and atheists are pro-choice, indicating that many pro-life arguments are theological, and not scientific.  Regardless, many non-religious people may personally oppose abortion, but do not feel the need to legislate their beliefs on others, which is the central focus of this entire debate.

I was talking about their church's position not protestants themselves.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Wrong comparision, Inks. The fetus is the direct result of the rape not some bystander who gets dragged in.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

"What about rape?" - It's not the child's fault - dont' punish the innocent 3rd party.  My mother who counsels these people says that most raped women who get abortions get even more emotionally unstable.

Uh... wow.  That's because they were impregnated by a rapist...

Inks cares more about the fetus than he does women. Disgusting.

No - I care for both - but I'm going to defend the one who can't defend him/herself.

And they're aren't more unstable b/c they were impregnated - you missed my point.

Women who get abortions after being raped are normally more unstable than those who have the baby.

Why does stability have any relevance?

Because you guys have "the best interest of the woman" in mind.

We do. Ruining someone's life with an unplanned pregnancy isn't remotely in the best interest of the woman. I prefer practical ideas to imposing one's moral views on everyone else(I personally agree with the pro-lifers but I know it wouldn't work hence my opposition to bans on abortion)

[Gustaf]

Protestantism-90% opposed but there are fringe groups who support abortion rights

Where are you getting these numbers?  They're complete nonsense.  More than 10% of Protestants support abortion rights.  Why do you think at least 45%+ of the US is pro-choice?

Anyway, if abortion is wrong regardless of whether you're religious, consider that polling indicates that up to 75% of American agnostics and atheists are pro-choice, indicating that many pro-life arguments are theological, and not scientific.  Regardless, many non-religious people may personally oppose abortion, but do not feel the need to legislate their beliefs on others, which is the central focus of this entire debate.

Since when do political arguments need to be scientific? THere is nothing inherently scientific about being pro-choice. It's merely typical of people with a certain kind of amoralist belief system to kid themselves that their set of beliefs and positions is somehow more objective than other peoples'.

[Ebowed]

Protestantism-90% opposed but there are fringe groups who support abortion rights

Where are you getting these numbers?  They're complete nonsense.  More than 10% of Protestants support abortion rights.  Why do you think at least 45%+ of the US is pro-choice?

Anyway, if abortion is wrong regardless of whether you're religious, consider that polling indicates that up to 75% of American agnostics and atheists are pro-choice, indicating that many pro-life arguments are theological, and not scientific.  Regardless, many non-religious people may personally oppose abortion, but do not feel the need to legislate their beliefs on others, which is the central focus of this entire debate.

Since when do political arguments need to be scientific? THere is nothing inherently scientific about being pro-choice. It's merely typical of people with a certain kind of amoralist belief system to kid themselves that their set of beliefs and positions is somehow more objective than other peoples'.

Yeah, you think I'm amoral and disgusting.  I get it.

Reasons to oppose abortion may be scientific, philosophical, or logical; I was merely saying that I did not feel theological ones to be relevant when legislating was concerned.  I mentioned only science since this poster doesn't seem to be able to defend his arguments very well and I'm throwing him a bone by giving him the easiest angle (science) from which to defend the pro-life viewpoint.