I am antiabortion because I am an atheist

[rlrose328]

Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

These are your attenuating circumstances.  Partial birth abortions due to cleft palates are not common.  No one here is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortions, though some may be indifferent to them.  When you originally came here, we thought you were going to debate against abortion as it currently legally stands.  That's the only kind I'm defending, I know that much.  I'm not defending whatever strawmen you try to force on me.  I do not support baby rape, or 3rd trimester abortions or whatever else you can think of, unless I say otherwise.  My lines are clearly drawn.

I only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it.  This means that early term fetuses and terminally brain dead individuals could be terminated at the behest of their guardian.  For what it's worth, I also think suicide, that is, the termination of oneself, should be legalized, but that's a matter apart from this.

You said all of that in a LOT fewer words than I could or would have.  Kudos.      This is my stance exactly.

[PipeBox]

First off, your "dirty tricks" are no better, but without them you lose almost all support to your argument.  Mine don't suffer this, as a fetus prior to week 26 is no more intelligent than a ring worm, is unresponsive to stimuli, and falls doubly under the pregnant woman's power of medical attorney, medical attorney for herself and for the inactive human-to-be.  Still, I'll address your other points.

Week 13 is too soon in my opinion, end of the second trimester gets my vote for where the cut off should remain.  Women aborting after the 3rd trimester are already punished where it is illegal, like where I live.  We don't kill them in return, though, because it solves bugger all.  You want vengeance, not protection, though you will gladly state that this will decrease abortions.  You're right, and I bet fewer kids would steal candy from stores if we killed them, and fewer people would drive drunk if the cops came up to a scene where a person got hit by the driver and the cops shot the driver then and there.  It's not about plainly reducing it, you've a poor understanding of why we have law, it isn't for vain retribution, but protection.  The irony is palpable.  Now, there will always be people for whom the law does not offer a harsh enough penalty.  Kids still steal candy, people still drink and drive, and even under your system, women would still have abortions.

Terry Schiavo was not easily recoverable, if she was, she'd still be alive.  Your hypothetical question has little bearing on our conversation, and I'm not sure what you were getting at.  Do you mean to say we should keep people in persistent vegetative states on life support indefinitely?

No, I do not think a 13 year old should commit suicide over math.  But the law doesn't have much arresting effect on the dead, and I was quite aware of this when I almost killed myself.  Children should be taken care of, if they seem suicidal, people should try to intervene, same for adults that care about them.  There is, and never will be, any law against trying help people through rough spots in their lives.  Any 13 year old that wants to die so badly that they aren't afraid to is beyond the possibility of being put off by a trivial federal law, though.  I just think it is a waste of resources to litigate attempted suicides, and I also think it's a police report no one wants tied to them or their loved ones.  Law or no law, people will continue killing themselves, 13 year olds included.  Do you really think someone about to kill themselves stops when they think "Oh, but it would be against the law"?

I happen to think it's outside the purview of the law to enforce self-protection.  It should be something educated people do.  I wear helmets and seat belts and I'm careful about how much alcohol I drink, but I don't think the law should have authority to fine or arrest people for only imposing risks on themselves.  So when it comes to you trying to outlaw what a woman does with her body while it's occupied by the equivalent of a parasite, I consider you to be oppressive.  And when you want to impose punishment disproportionate to crimes, I consider you to be vengeful.

[Jolly Sapper]

Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

off topic Could you explain what you mean by attenuating and aggravating circumstances (feel free to PM me). I may have missed your definition of these in earlier posts.  Are these legal or medical terms?  Attenuating means to make things smaller or less and aggravating means to make things more or worse. back on topic

If you take the absolutist stance that abortion, in any form, is morally wrong and should therefore be made illegal it doesn't matter what the circumstance is.  If abortion is completely 100% illegal, a woman who accidentally stands too close to a microwave oven is just as guilty of a crime as a woman who would decide to use abortions as birth control, both are endangering the live of a potential human being correct?

[Whitney]

FYI, cyperateos has been put on permanent vacation and therefore won't be responding to any more posts here.

[Jolly Sapper]

FYI, cyperateos has been put on permanent vacation and therefore won't be responding to any more posts here.

oops, totally missed that.

[SSY]

The worst thing is, it is just going to fuel his rabid anti abortion zeal. Now he is going to feel all persecuted, and come off that people here are hypocritical censors, so that the next person he harangs about this are subjected to even more drivel.

[Whitney]

The worst thing is, it is just going to fuel his rabid anti abortion zeal. Now he is going to feel all persecuted, and come off that people here are hypocritical censors, so that the next person he harangs about this are subjected to even more drivel.

Eh...I think he's already been banned from a lot of forums.  He probably got here from following the link in my sig on the last forum he got banned from.

[SektionTen]

So, the guy's been permanently banned. I guess we can stop talking about this now...  

[Whitney]

Deleted by poster

wtf?  DIY, if you ever decide to come back you are going to have to explain to me why you deleted ALL of your posts.  

[Heretical Rants]

I only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it.

+1

I'm too lazy to try to extrapolate on that.

[tauromaquia]

Not following your line of logic there,sports fan.
The abortion itself is only in part about the potential life...
It has primarily to do w/ the health and well-being of the mother.
And her rights.

If the mother chooses not bring to term a creation from her own body who is in a position to tell her that she has to?
While nobody's is "pro-abortion" (as has been stated here many times)..a large number of us are for women have rights over there own bodies and people minding their own business.
 I see,nothing in your argument that addresses either of those crucial issues,my friend.