I have to wonder if you ever sat in a church and listened to a preacher saying to the congregation "abortion is murder" and "those evil people who perform abortions are baby-killers" and "we have got to rise up and stop this abomination." The pro-choice message is that a woman who is pregnant knows her own situation and resources better than anybody else, so she should be the one to make the decision whether to have a child or get an abortion. Which of those messages do you honestly believe would incite a person to commit violence against an abortion provider?
Are you denying that people have restrictions along with their rights????!!! What! You feel you have the right to enter my house and shoot me?!?!? What!!!
These are YOUR words:""Abortion harms a fetus that if left unhindered has a high chance in America to become what we call a baby."" I posted, (""...and a fetus left un-aborted has a chance to become a baby in any country "" ) Did I say you claimed otherwise? No. I stated a fact, you should try it sometime....
Wise men debate opinion. Only fools debate fact. If you believe the figure to be true, I am not going to try to change your mind. When used properly, condoms are 98% effective. When worn as a hat, they are less effective. Between these two extremes are stats on the effectiveness of condom use. The claim that 50% of women having abortions used birth control includes improper use, inconsistent use, not used at the time of conception, less effective methods, and dishonesty. The figure may be misleading, but who am I to tell you what to believe.
Rubbish, do you consider the harm caused to a person who is injured when another person is protecting themselves against them immoral, if not then why do you consider a woman protecting herself against the harm caused by a fetus immoral, in the end the woman is only using the same rights you have .. the right to decide who, what , where and when her body is used by another.
There is no requirement for intent to harm or negligence, all either of those provide are a means for the justice system to prosecute. If the person causing the injuries is deemed mentally incompetent they cannot be judged or prosecuted, however that does not imply that they are not capable of inflicting harm onto others, nor does it imply that the person being injured cannot defend themselves, all it means is the person inflicting the injuries cannot be held legally responsible for them. Under the current legal system should the unborn ever be deemed as persons from conception then they are legally responsible for pregnancy, what ever occurred prior to pregnancy is nothing more than a factual cause that may or may not have lead to the legal cause, the legal cause requires the last most significant happening that occurred without which the issue would not have happened, in the case of pregnancy that happening is the successful implantation of the fertilized ovum into the uterine wall which due to the deeming of the unborn as persons from conception would mean the fertilized ovum is the legal cause of pregnancy, and as such would require the separate consent of the female REGARDLESS of the lack of intent on behalf of the ovum, should the female not consent to this intrusion upon her autonomy then she has every right to use what ever means necessary to stop it occurring, her ONLY recourse is the use of deadly force, she cannot retreat, she cannot request the "attacker" to retreat nor can she use non-deadly force to stop herself being injured by a third party, furthermore under the person at conception ideology the state has a duty of care under the equal protection clause to aid her in stopping the injuries occurring, just as it does by aiding born people to be free of injuries they do not consent to. All pregnancies cause harm to the female, even wanted ones.
By this logic a woman who does jogging in Central park after dark and is raped has played a part in setting the self harm in motion, can I suggest you look up factual cause and legal cause please. Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/ Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/ Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman. While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus. So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy. How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence. A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause. Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred. This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state. In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task. While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences. Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies. A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause. The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy... but it is not legal cause. The successful implantation of a fertilized ovum into the uterine wall is a necessary significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause. Whether sexual intercourse was consensual or not is irrelevant to the legal cause of pregnancy.
It really is irrelevant if 0% or 100% of men and women used contraception as nobody is under any obligation to use contraception at all.
I have previously stated my justification but will do it again. In general the boundary that separates an action from an immoral action is harm, and as an abortion ends (harms) what is in my view a developing human life it is immoral. The strawman just is not working for me as it is a false equivalency and has other mitigating factors that would need to be addresses, all of which will take us off topic.
One who speaks for both makes a productive debate impossible and as such I will move on to debate those who allow me to speak for me. The above is a combination of telling me what I already know and placing your words in my mouth and calling them myown.
Oh, quit whining , I never stopped you from saying what you have to say. I just showed you were wrong. You are free to comment on the following that you seem to be hesitant in addressing using all kinds of excuses(moot, mitigating circumstances, strawman, false equivalency, off topic). I allow you to speak for yourself on the following (especially the bolded): Since you're all over the place and there's so much of your "moot" and "reading too much into what I said " (INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING WHAT I POSTED ) I'll take it one step at a time: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The fetus does harm the pregnant woman. HOW it got there is irrelevant . YOUR morals are all over the place since you would "allow" a woman who was raped to get an abortion even though an abortion because of rape IS EXACTLY the SAME procedure and outcome as an abortion due to consensual sex what you are saying is that women MUST BE PUNISHED for having consensual sex. How could it be anything else? 3. ABORTION does NOT cause chaos in society. Violent psychopaths who hate life and kill and harass people at abortion clinics create chaos...
Perhaps spend less time woundering and more time asking clarifying questions as questions can make woundering unnecessary. So let me clear things up, I am not a Christian nor am I a member of any religion. My stance against some aspects of abortion is not based upon a theistic belief nor was I ever indoctrinated in the whole abortion is evil thing. My view of abortion is based on my moral code which I came to by myself and I see the moral code of religion as overreaching as it tends to make negative judgments of some harmless action. The basis of my moral code is basically the negative of the Golden Rule that being; if I would find a thing harmful to me then I should not do that thing to another. Thus if I had been aborted I would not be here to enjoy all that I have in life hence my negative view of abortion in general. Now there is more to my moral code but for the sake of time I will not go indepth on the litmus test I use or give a long winded examples of the exceptions to the rule or how I decide the lesser of two negatives. I understand that. A better question is why do you ask a question with an obvious answer that is not germane to the topic? Is this somehow connected to another's claim that abortion does not cause chaos? Lots of strawmen walking around this thread.
Except we can detect brain waves in the unborn. Babies are born with brains, you know. 1) you make the general claim that it won't become a person w/o the mothers effort, and compare it to a plant. Are you suggesting that a "baby cactus", so to speak, isn't a cactus until it is fully grown and developed? Because if so, humans aren't persons until around 25 (when the pre frontal cortex finishes decelopment). That one is a "developing" being doesn't prove that it is not a being. 2. You complain that pro life candidates don't want exceptions for cases of rape? And? Are you going to tell me that a BORN child (out of the womb) is less human, or less worthy of protection of the law, if conceived through rape? Unless your answer is yes, then there is no good reason why the child of rape shouldn't be protected at the same point as any other. 3. This argument is incredibly simple, but you're trying to complicate it. People who are pro life only believe abortion should he banned *when there is a human life at stake*. Myself, i am pro life, but don't consider it murder until human brain waves and heart beat is present. Why? Because the lack thereof is the basis for declaring a person dead, so the presence thereof can only logically be declared the start of life. If you disagree, the rape, incest, affordability is all extraneous. The debate is when life begins, and that's it, because if we all believed it began at birth,there would be no laws against abortion. For a pro choice to talk about abortion affordability as an issue in response to a pro lifer talking about life - it's like someone saying that murder is too expensive these days and needs to be more affordable for the disadvantaged in response to someone talking about a murder epidemic.
No. Dodge noted. I take said dodge as an admittance that you cannot back your previous claim. As you make claims then dodge source citation I will move on to debate those who are capable of backing their claims.
Spoken from a position of ignorance. I never made the above claim. Welcome to my block list as it has become obvious it is impossible to have a productive debate with you.
You have stated that abortion harms a developing human life before it has become a person. It is not a strawman to ask you how far back that goes, and what is your justification for that threshold. I have other questions but in order to ask them I would have to guess at your answer to this one.
Yet another strawman. Did you miss where I prefaced my moral code with "in general"? Harm has to be taken case by case and in the above strawman I would answer no to one and yes to another as the comparison is a false equivalency.
Maybe I misunderstood, but it certainly sounded like you were trying to blame pro-choice advocates for the violence against abortion providers. As you said, the answer is obvious. The pro-life extremists are the most likely cause of violence against abortion providers.
Says who and by what authority? And this has what to do with abortion? That is fine and all, but my view on this topic is not based in legalities nor some esoteric directive of a deity. Indeed, nor have I claimed otherwise. Are you attempting to equate a pregnancy as being somehow equivalent with assault and battery?
We can detect brain waves (but no meaningful thought patterns) in the fetus while the brain is under construction. By the way, we can also detect brain waves in other animals, but that does not mean they are self-aware persons. There will be nervous system activity, and even reflex activity, while the brain is still developing, but there is no evidence that it is possible for the fetus become self-aware until the last month or two of pregnancy. Before that point, the only "person" involved is the pregnant woman. When does life begin? Possibly billions of years ago. When does the life of a self-aware person begin? For thousands of years people have accepted the premise that the life of a person begins at birth. Our laws in the United States do not treat the unborn as persons under the law until they are born. If our laws considered the unborn as people, there would have been no need for the UVVA. Even the UVVA protects the rights of the family (who sustained a loss), not the rights of the fetus as a separate legal entity.
Yet another false equivalency. Harm needs to be assessed case by case as opposed to drawing conclusions based upon false comparisons. The woman is not culpable as she did not consent to sex. In the case of rape I back the choice the victim makes in whether to have an abortion or not as forcing them to bear the product of a rape just does not sit well with me. All a moot point as my moral code is no based upon legal precedent.
