Abortion

[got tonkaed]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

[Stopper]

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Presumably, you don't mean like the last time...

[got tonkaed]

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Presumably, you don't mean like the last time...

ha i remember that, back in the days when i was still a sitting on the fence centrist.

[luns101]

The following takes place within the first trimester:

Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse. At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed. This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.

3 Weeks after Fertilization

The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.

4 Weeks after Fertilization

The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.

7 Weeks after Fertilization

Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.

9 Weeks after Fertilization

More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones. The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.

10 Weeks after Fertilization

All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body. The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.

12 Weeks after Fertilization

Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable.

I was thinking about posting some pictures of abortions that were performed within the first trimester, but I decided not to. I believe that these pictures are the best proof of why abortion is a horrible procedure. It's terrible when someone tries to redefine this procedure as a "choice". So Luns, why don't you post the pics then?...well, it is obvious that some of the people here have made that choice and still live with the pain. What good is it going to do to stir up all those feelings again? Usually, people will come out even more angry because you're forcing them to face up to what they did.

I'm just asking the people here who haven't gone down that path to not escalate the problem by pursuing an abortion. I've talked to people who have, and they regret it every day with unimaginable guilt. One of my first ESL students in the Riverside area told me that her doctor recommended an abortion because the child would be born with Down's Syndrome. She declined, and went ahead to have a healthy girl who now is in 5th grade. Although the girl's mental capabilities aren't the best, she is such a joy to interact with. I helped her map out & color the 7 continents this past summer. Such a privilege to help the mom & the daughter.

[OnlyAmbrose]

But killing another human isn't always murder, thats the point - we draw the line in various places about killing and murder... after all, the states that support an abortion ban tend to support execution - an example of murder.

I am anti capital punishment as well. The general policy of the Catholic church is that ending human life is bad.

[OnlyAmbrose]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Stopper didn't really make any points. He made a statement of his emotions on the topic.

And like all emotions, you can turn them the other way. Everybody has them, certainly not just women, so in this debate they're fairly irrelevant because they're so varied and dynamic.

[Stopper]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Stopper didn't really make any points. He made a statement of his emotions on the topic.

And like all emotions, you can turn them the other way. Everybody has them, certainly not just women, so in this debate they're fairly irrelevant because they're so varied and dynamic.

Well, I disagree. My second paragraph, which is the one you obviously concentrated on, was just about my emotional feel on the subject, and, regardless of how much it might resonate with others, you're right, it has no point.

However, ignoring the first paragraph, which was just a quick summation of things as I see it, my last paragraph in response to salvadevinemasse made the point that a woman doesn't lose any of the rights of the individual over their own body just because they get pregnant.

Now, I realise that may appear to be irrelevant to a Catholic in the context of an abortion debate (because the foetus is a separate person from the woman) but this conversation was between a wiccan, an atheist, and (errr, I think, but I'm not sure) another atheist, so a point, from their point of view, had been made.

Another facet of the abortion debate I want to bring up is people deliberately evoking images, descriptions, etc to try and influence the debate in their direction. That'd apply to luns101's last post, which contains nothing but appeals to emotion. Don't you agree?

[luns101]

Another facet of the abortion debate I want to bring up is people deliberately evoking images, descriptions, etc to try and influence the debate in their direction. That'd apply to luns101's last post, which contains nothing but appeals to emotion. Don't you agree?

I see no problem with deliberately evoking images to try and influence what people feel to be an injustice towards innocent life. Emotions are part of who we are as human beings. After all, abolitionists did that in the U.S. to show the horrors of slavery. Civil rights activists also did the same thing in front of TV cameras on purpose to show the injustice towards African-Americans. I've also seen websites show prisoners at Abu-Ghraib being abused in order to stop that abuse.

The reason I didn't do it here is because I thought someone who has been through that experience might just feel like crap all over again.

[Malkithe]

But killing another human isn't always murder, thats the point - we draw the line in various places about killing and murder... after all, the states that support an abortion ban tend to support execution - an example of murder.

I am anti capital punishment as well. The general policy of the Catholic church is that ending human life is bad.

The policy historically has more often than not supported war, sometimes just to convert people to Catholicism... more killing!

[Malkithe]

Another facet of the abortion debate I want to bring up is people deliberately evoking images, descriptions, etc to try and influence the debate in their direction. That'd apply to luns101's last post, which contains nothing but appeals to emotion. Don't you agree?

I see no problem with deliberately evoking images to try and influence what people feel to be an injustice towards innocent life. Emotions are part of who we are as human beings. After all, abolitionists did that in the U.S. to show the horrors of slavery. Civil rights activists also did the same thing in front of TV cameras on purpose to show the injustice towards African-Americans. I've also seen websites show prisoners at Abu-Ghraib being abused in order to stop that abuse.

The reason I didn't do it here is because I thought someone who has been through that experience might just feel like crap all over again.

Deliberatly evoking or giving in to emotion destroys rationality. In the end, all of the images of horros of slavery did not end slavery - slavery was ended at a time when doing so was UNPOPULAR, and done so for political reasons (Lincoln did not actually free any slaves... the supreme court added meaning after the fact).

Civil rights activists again - the emotional content was captivating and horrifying, but what actually moved the people was good old fashioned rational oratry.

Censorship because of emotional content should only be exercized in the case of small children - traumatized individuals don't have a right to share in the discussion of the human experience?

[Malkithe]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Stopper didn't really make any points. He made a statement of his emotions on the topic.

And like all emotions, you can turn them the other way. Everybody has them, certainly not just women, so in this debate they're fairly irrelevant because they're so varied and dynamic.

Stopper made a very well laid out, rational argument that anyone'd be hard pressed to dispute without falling back on emotional appeal.

[OnlyAmbrose]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Stopper didn't really make any points. He made a statement of his emotions on the topic.

And like all emotions, you can turn them the other way. Everybody has them, certainly not just women, so in this debate they're fairly irrelevant because they're so varied and dynamic.

Stopper made a very well laid out, rational argument that anyone'd be hard pressed to dispute without falling back on emotional appeal.

Ahem.

I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion

There isn't much rational about it... he gets queasy when men talk about abortion. Not well-laid out at all, though he put it perfectly respectfully and I have no problem with him voicing his distaste on the matter. I just thought I'd mention that it was based on emotion rather than rationale because you seemed to be hailing it as the latter.

Because, you see, us pro-lifers see the issue differently from you at it's very base - we don't think it's an issue of the woman, so much as the child.

If you want to discuss rationality, please address the points I made a few pages back which specifically dealt in logic.

[muy_thaiguy]

But killing another human isn't always murder, thats the point - we draw the line in various places about killing and murder... after all, the states that support an abortion ban tend to support execution - an example of murder.

I am anti capital punishment as well. The general policy of the Catholic church is that ending human life is bad.

And that is probably one thing I have to disagree with you on, but I believe that child molesters and serial killers should face the ultimate consiquence. But that is just me.

[OnlyAmbrose]

But killing another human isn't always murder, thats the point - we draw the line in various places about killing and murder... after all, the states that support an abortion ban tend to support execution - an example of murder.

I am anti capital punishment as well. The general policy of the Catholic church is that ending human life is bad.

And that is probably one thing I have to disagree with you on, but I believe that child molesters and serial killers should face the ultimate consiquence. But that is just me.

Church doctrine thinks differently, friend. Ever hear about Pope John Paul II's discourse on "The Culture of Death"?

[Malkithe]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Stopper didn't really make any points. He made a statement of his emotions on the topic.

And like all emotions, you can turn them the other way. Everybody has them, certainly not just women, so in this debate they're fairly irrelevant because they're so varied and dynamic.

Stopper made a very well laid out, rational argument that anyone'd be hard pressed to dispute without falling back on emotional appeal.

Ahem.

I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion

There isn't much rational about it... he gets queasy when men talk about abortion. Not well-laid out at all, though he put it perfectly respectfully and I have no problem with him voicing his distaste on the matter. I just thought I'd mention that it was based on emotion rather than rationale because you seemed to be hailing it as the latter.

Because, you see, us pro-lifers see the issue differently from you at it's very base - we don't think it's an issue of the woman, so much as the child.

If you want to discuss rationality, please address the points I made a few pages back which specifically dealt in logic.

You keep using this 'you and me' rhetoric - look back at my previous posts, and you'll see that I am anti-abortion, I just feel we can accomplish that better through social, rather than legal, avenues. Banning something doesn't make it go away, it only hides it.

[Bellhop]

I am in favour of abortion. The "baby" hasn't done anything yet, it hasn't made a conscious effort to help anybody or get to know anyone. It has no personality. Personality develops gradually, there is no one time when a person is worthy of living- one's worth increases as the fetus grows, and even when the baby comes out it still isn't a full human being. If you don't like the child you have growing, kill it and get another one. Simple as that.

[edwinissweet]

i was strictly prolife til i read wat that asshole on top of me said. now i believe that people like him should be aborted and shitted on.,

[luns101]

look back at my previous posts, and you'll see that I am anti-abortion, I just feel we can accomplish that better through social, rather than legal, avenues. Banning something doesn't make it go away, it only hides it.

This is an interesting take on the whole thing. I've got a lot of questions, but these would be the top ones:

1. What social avenues are you referring to?
2. Wouldn't changing the law also change things socially?
3. If banning something doesn't make it go away, then why do most liberals want to ban handguns?

You don't have to answer the last one if you don't want to because it's not directly related to the whole abortion question. It just crossed my mind.

[Malkithe]

#3's easy - because they're under the same impression that illegal things don't exist. If you do a little research, the frequency of abortions did rise slightly, but abortions did exist before they were made legal. The problem is, we don't have any information on how many, or how dangerous they were, how many people suffered health problems, reason for, etc. Sweeping something under the rug rather than by trying to deal with it isn't healthy, which leads to:

#1 - There is a reason for and against every abortion that takes place, and there are higher numbers of abortions among people in certain groups. Teenage girls, for example, in less educated parts of the US, have higher rates of abortion. Better sexual education, better moral education (either from educational system or family - another touchy subject) would lessen the number of abortions (you've removed the reason why). People are frightened of sexual education because they think it will 'discover' sex for children. The fact of the matter is that ignorance and myth lead to a lot of young pregnancies, which lead to a lot of abortions.

Studies also show that just having greater access for people in 'high risk' areas to religious and therapeutic counseling lessens the chance of their having an abortion.

Most people have come to realize that police can't stop the spread of illegal drug use, but treating it socially rather than superficially lessens it significant when implemented correctly.

#2 then - The laws we set for ourselves at the governmental level and the values and mores we govern ourselves at the micro level with are two different things. After all, Illegal drug use, speeding, sharing music across the internet are all very much illegal and regularly enforced, yet the majority of us find this in conflict with our own values, and we tend to fall into behaviors acceptable to our friends and family, not our congressman. Study and anecdote both show us numerous examples of where police fail in the face of public opinion.

That having been said, ignorance is at the root of most social discord like this. Better education, and open discussion about the morals of behavior (sort of like what we're doing here) will be more effective in preventing abortions in the long and short runs.

[edwinissweet]

i bend a knee and take my beanie of to that malthike. a sex ed teacher at a catholic school couldnt of said it better.

[Malkithe]

That post may lead to very very bad jokes.

[edwinissweet]

haha, i didnt realy think of it lol

[vtmarik]

But killing another human isn't always murder, thats the point - we draw the line in various places about killing and murder... after all, the states that support an abortion ban tend to support execution - an example of murder.

I am anti capital punishment as well. The general policy of the Catholic church is that ending human life is bad.

And that is probably one thing I have to disagree with you on, but I believe that child molesters and serial killers should face the ultimate consiquence. But that is just me.

Church doctrine thinks differently, friend. Ever hear about Pope John Paul II's discourse on "The Culture of Death"?

You say that now, but if a guy with a gun managed to squeeze off a few rounds at the Pope, you bet his guards would put him down.

And Malkithe makes my point for me that I was trying (and failing) to make before. States that try and ban abortion (or that did in the pre Roe v. Wade era) were perfectly fine with capital punishment. Where were the pro-lifers linking arms and blocking access to the execution chambers?

But back to the topic, I have to disagree with Stopper's earlier post. While the decision is ultimately the woman's in any case, the father should still have some weight given to his thoughts. Half of that baby (genetically speaking) is his after all.

Also, Malkithe raises another good point with the idea that making something illegal only pushes it into hiding. Guns, drugs, back-alley abortions, illegal organ sales, etc. These are all things that are happening daily, and while the politicians pass acts to "crack down" on the crime (in order to make them feel like they're doing something useful and aggressive when in fact all they're doing is stroking their egos) only serves to drive the activity further into the unregulated, unsanitary realm of alleyways and abandoned buildings.

Liberal, Conservative, they're both out of touch.

[luns101]

Thanks Malkithe, although I don't agree with some of your points that was a very well put forth argument. Thanks for taking the time to explain it further.

[salvadevinemasse]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.

I think stopper makes a lot of good points (like i usually do)....

from now on any time you see me floundering in a thread, want to just set me back on the right track?

Stopper didn't really make any points. He made a statement of his emotions on the topic.

And like all emotions, you can turn them the other way. Everybody has them, certainly not just women, so in this debate they're fairly irrelevant because they're so varied and dynamic.

Stopper made a very well laid out, rational argument that anyone'd be hard pressed to dispute without falling back on emotional appeal.

Ahem.

I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion

There isn't much rational about it... he gets queasy when men talk about abortion. Not well-laid out at all, though he put it perfectly respectfully and I have no problem with him voicing his distaste on the matter. I just thought I'd mention that it was based on emotion rather than rationale because you seemed to be hailing it as the latter.

Because, you see, us pro-lifers see the issue differently from you at it's very base - we don't think it's an issue of the woman, so much as the child.

If you want to discuss rationality, please address the points I made a few pages back which specifically dealt in logic.

What page was that on?