BoatBanter.com - Just How Safe Do You Feel?

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

I'm not denying anything. Only downplaying the significance of the
"health issue" as a criteria for choosing abortion.

Of course you'd have to downplay the significance of the health issue,
along with any other real issue that doesn't fit your opinion.

That's a cheap shot. I only meant that the "health" issue is not the
focal point, or the germaine issue, when most women contemplate
abortion. If you wish to debate that, I'd love to see the supporting
evidence.

Abortion is normally not done for health reasons, but for convenience.
Shallow, callous, immoral, and irresponsible, but convenience.

It doesn't really matter what you think the reasons are. Your morality
and whether you believe it's callous, shallow and irresponsible isn't an
issue here. First because in a free society it shouldn't translate to
another person with their own right to control their reproductive
process and second because I thought we decided to restrict the
discussion to legal issues and leave morality and religion out of it.

Steve, while we can agree that specific, recognized, and organized
religions can be excepted from the discussion, because they have no real
relevance, the same cannot be said for morality. Our whole legal system,
and the basis by which the basic laws are created, is based of a
particular sense of morality. Morality transcends religion, and it's the
ruler by which we gauge our actions. Without morality, how could we
justify a ban on any sort of killing? Afterall, it could be argued that
it's someone's personal choice, to kill another. But we have a sense of
morality which says that the taking of another life is wrong, and we
wrote laws to address this. Abortion is the same thing. As long as

Yes, yes, wonderful, all well and good. But it's not the issue here at
all. The issue here is that legally, today, abortion is not murder.
That's the law, with all of the morality behind it.

For which you deny that a mistake could not have been made, based on an
improper assumption that the unborn fetus is not a life, worth
considering, either legally or morally?

people feel that it is morally wrong, there will be people who push for
laws to restrict it. One could make the case that those who see nothing
wrong with the callous termination of a life, and who justify it as "a
dependant fetus" or "it's not really a life until it's born" and any
other excuse, are only trying to appease their conscience, for their own
lack of morality.

And one can also make the case that those who want to push their
morality on others are presumptious *******s.

Most criminals also feel that way. But we see who's viewpoint is more in
line with the preservation of a harmonious society.

No it doesn't. Society reserves the right to pass sentence on
individuals who have been found to be a danger to society. Remember,
we're talking legally, not morally here.

Of course it does. Society will not fare any differently if the
individual spends the rest of his life in jail or is killed.

It costs money to house, feed, and provide medical care for these
scumbags. We are running out of room to keep the seemingly increasing
numbers of the criminal element. Plus, there is always the chance that
he'll either escape, or be parolled by a bleeding heart liberal, who
feels that he's "suffered long enough".

Money is not the issue since it costs more to kill them.

??????? I'd like to hear your rationale for that statement. How could it
be cheaper to feed, house, cloth, and give medical care to an inmate for
30+ years, than to give him one big electric shock, or a shot of lethal
chemicals?

Because of our legal system. Look up the figures for yourself.

I assume you're talking about the red tape surrounding the often long
process, of being on death row. If that's the case, I might be inclined
to believe you. But that only underscores another reason to streamline
the process, and eliminate the red tape. As it were, it still only costs
a bit more for legal representation for appeals. Keeping a prisoner
alive on death row, is no different than the money spent to support a
life sentence.

Otherwise, once the scumbag is dead, it costs no further money.

Room is not an
issue because room will always be made for someone guilty of a capital
crime.

But at what cost? Do we continue to build more and more prisons (In
places where people shout NIMBY!), or do we start letting "lesser"
criminals (like drug dealers) loose to make room for the really "bad"
guys?

Again, look up the figures for the percentage of the prison population
that is on death row and/or are in for life without parole compared to
the overall prison population. There will always be room for them
because they are an insignificant percentage. If you really want to
make room for more really bad guys, all you have to do legalize and
control and tax certain recreational drugs like pot. Then you'd have
all the room in prison you need.

The old, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy?
There is no societal benefit to legalizing controlled substances. They
only benefit simple minded people, with low self esteem, and a lack of
discipline, who seemingly can't cope with life, without an "escape".

There aren't really that many of them compared to the rest of
the prison population. Parole is not an issue because capital crimes
generally are not elligable for parole no matter whether a bleeding
heart liberal thinks they've suffered long enough.

Like you've said before, laws can be changed. Pardons can be issued, and
as long as the criminal lives, there is always a chance that he could be
set free.

That's true. Which is why I'm for the death penalty. I just can't
understand how you can be, given your stated belief that it's wrong to
put one life ahead of another.

If they're on equal terms.

I've tried to explain it before. The death penalty is justified, due to
the criminal having committed a crime (usually murder), by which he
deserves the ultimate forfeiture of his rights, and as an assurance that
this person can no longer be a danger to society.
A far cry from the termination of innocent lives for simple convenience,
and an escape from responsibility.

You are assuming too much here. We have no way of knowing who will be in
any target area, at any given time.

Of course we do. When reconisance photos show civilians surrounding
military targets, we know they are there. Hell, we even make that
information public ... and bomb the crap out of it anyway.

That sort of data changes by the minute. We cannot be certain at any
given point just WHO is where. Afterall, we sent in missiles not once,
but twice based on info on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. We still
can't verify if we actually got him. Most people in the know, now
believe he's still alive. So if we can't rely on the accuracy of hour
old info, how can we ever justify any attack?

for abortion the INTENT of the
process is to end the pregnancy. The killing of the fetus is the
unintended but necessary byproduct.

Since one goal is dependant on the other, they cannot be looked at as
separate issues. That comparison is little more than an exercise in
semantics.

Wrong. There are plenty processes where one step follows and depends on
another and yet can still be looked at as separate issues.

Name them.

You'll have
to do better if you want to single out abortion as an exception to that.

No, you'll have to do better than a simple contradiction to make your
case that a cause and effect relationship can be considered separate
issues when they are intrinsincally linked.

One is a direct result of the other. It's THAT simple. That makes them
linked and not seperate. I want to see you realistically do one without
the other. You're starting to tapdance like a liberal now.

Follow the logical criteria, and you'll see where the chips fall. Were
the victims of the "collateral damage" the intended target? No. Did we
willfully seek out and plan to kill those people? No.

They were not the intended target. But we did willfully seek out and
plan to kill those people, yes.

No, Who are "those people"? Innocent civilians are never a legitimate
military target. Our targets were exclusively command and control
centers, and military installations.

Exact same situation as abortion.

I don't see it that way. Besides, you cannot compare a justified
military campaign, to the killing of an innocent life.

But I'd love to see a general officer or President
brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter when there is
collateral damage as a result of their policy or actions. The fact that
they aren't most likely means that *legally*, collateral damage does not
fit any of your definitions above.

Because war is handled quite differently than civilian law. The
"victorious" side is not charged with anything as a consequence of
suppressing a threat. The "aggressors", can be charged with "war
crimes", such as the case with the Nueremburg trials, Milosevic, and
likely Saddam, if he's ever found alive.

Ah, so you're saying morality has nothing to do with it and it's just
that the rights of the more powerful entity take precedence. You're
making progress.

Morality does have much to do with it. Vanquishing a threatening enemy
is a justifiable killing. Abortion is not.

Hmmmm. You finally admitting that there is no such thing as a
consistent set of morals, and that whatever ones you believe to be true
may not be right afterall? Or are you just admitting that you like to
make up whatever rules fit into your preconceived notions as you go
along and that you're morally inconsistent?

There is no universal truth. I did not make up the rules. And I do not
enjoy being taken to task for the events which put them into place. But
if your only justification for abortion, is that since morality is
inconsistent people therefore have the right to selectivly make
judgement calls to fit their convenience, it sends a very frightening
message that our very moral fiber is open to individual interpretation,
and the door to anarchy cracks open.....

Not a moral one.

Then there was not a moral one for restricting abortion either ... at
least by a consistent set of morals, not your conflicting set of morals.

Then by your own twisted logic, there is no moral justification for ANY
law. Welcome to anarchy.

I would agree with you, that keeping the government out of decision
making, is a noteworthy goal. However, this is not about government
control as much as it is a moral decry of the killing of another
innocent life, for no other reason than it's convenient.

Good. You can morally decry it all you want, as long as you don't get
the government to prevent it.

The who else would? Who is in charge of enforcing those rules which are
supposedly based on morality?

I don't have a problem is the fetus is ruled as genetically damaged, or
the fetus is a direct threat to the life of the mother. But I have a BIG
problem when abortion is used to cover up promiscuity and
irresponsibility.

OMG, now you're getting into the government making decisions on whether
to abort a fetus based on it's genetics, and whether the government
would rule it as "genetically damaged." While I also have a problem
with using abortion to cover up promiscuity and irresponsibility, I have
a MUCH BIGGER problem with the government ruling a fetus as "genetically
damaged" and basing abortion decisions on that.

The government? How about the OB, in charge? You can tell early on in a
pregancy if the fetus will have severe birth defects, or other
"problems" in this case, the choice would be the mother's, with the
endorsement of her doctor.

Ah, finally we can end this. Legally, society has specifically exempted
aborting a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy from being murder.
Just like your other exemptions.

The exemption of a fetus from protection under the law, is immoral.

Preventing a woman from having the option of a safe and legal abortion,
is immoral.

Why? There is no moral basis for protecting the right to end a pregancy.

Why should the mother be given the right to play God? It's not her
choice either.

Of COURSE it's her choice. It's certainly more her choice than yours.

Not it's not. The mother is only the vessel by which a life is
constructed. She has no more right to interfere with it, than anyone
else. I know if I envoke the name of God, that people get all weak in
the knees, and fly off the handle, and start looking for Jerry Fallwell
clones, but that's how I believe.

If the mother decides to have
an abortion, who are YOU to say it's not God's will that it be done and
God is acting through her? How can you or anyone else be so sure of
what God's will is?

Since we cannot be sure, we need to err on the side of morality, and
give the benefit of the doubt that God would prefer that all life which
he has blessed, he would want to come full term.

Why do you have to err on any side? Just you don't play God at all and
let the mother make her own decisions.

Because it's not her decision to make!

A simple stroke of a pen, and you're supposed to lower the bar for
morality? I'm sorry, but it's just not that easy.

Again, we're talking about legality here. Legally, abortion is not
murder. That's just something you have to come to terms with. It's a
self evident fact. I'm just hoping we don't lower the bar for morality
by making abortion illegal.

I would see it as raising the bar, as it will reduce the number of
shameless killing of innocent lives, any one of which could be the next
Einstein or Mozart.

Which has no bearing at all on the current viability of the fetus or of
the terminal patient. How do you know the cure for whatever they have,
even if it's brain death, won't come about the day after they are
terminated?

I don't know for sure, whether a cure for some illness would be found.
You make a good case for cryogenics. But I DO know, that a normal fetus
stands a VERY good chance of being born healthy, if allowed to. Those
odds are much better.

Which again, doesn't matter a single bit so there's no point belaboring
it. When the normal fetus is born healthy, legally killing it is not an
option.

And allowing to to make it to that point is an equal moral imperative.

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record" cases
as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much
easier morally, for people to accept abortion, if they truly believe
that "it's only a bunch of cells", and not an individual life. When
abortion first became legal, there were many people who believed that a
fetus didn't become a life until its head popped out, after 9 months.
That's why I beleive that abortion was made legal before the issue of
"when it becomes a life" was fully explored. I would support a
moratorium on abortion until the issue is finally resolved.

I may have to accept the fact that the law states that abortion is
legal. I do not accept that it's morally justified.

That's true. But you do have to accept the fact that you're judging it
by your morals, which are not necessarily the same as everyone else.

You make it sound like I'm alone here. Like I said before, if we are
going to hold a court of judgement, everytime a particular moral comes
under question, we might as well abandon all of our laws, since they are
all ultimately based on a moral premise. If we don't uphold these morals
as standards, then the rationale for any law becomes subjective.

Collateral damage is not accidental death. It took the willful act of
someone else to end the victim's life. It's not like a car accident.

It IS an accidental killing, unless the victim was the intended target.

In the case of where the innocent victim is forced to be in the
proximity of a military target and the target is destroyed, it is NO
accident.

Forced? Who forced them?

The power brokers (i.e., the ones with the guns) in whatever country
we're fighting. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Then we cannot be held responsible for the desperate and despicable acts
of the enemy's leadership.

And what about the police officer who does intend to shoot someone, and
pulls the trigger and hits them and kills them. But it turns out that
it was the wrong person and in the heat of the moment, the officer
thought they had a gun pointed at him.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the ensuing investigation,
the officer could be charged with reckless homicide, or it could be
ruled as a justified action. Police officers are under a great deal of
stress, and often have to make split second decisions, which could
result in their life being placed on the line. Sometimes, in the flash
of a second, a pack of cigarettes could be mistaken for a gun. The last
thing a perp, should be doing when a cop shouts the order to halt, is to
reach into their pocket for something. There's no way the cop can know
what's in your pocket, and he has to assume the worst.

My point exactly, which is why it's not an accident.

That particular case is not. But that's not the original case which I
presented.

You're wrong. It falls under the exact same criteria. Just like war,
safe and legal abortion is a necessary evil, trading human life for
freedom.

Abortion is only "necessary", if the health of the mother is threatened.
Any other case and it becomes purely optional.

And who's life for who's freedom? And at what cost, and for what reason?

You are so entirely inconsistent in your opinions that it's not even
funny anymore. It's actually getting pretty sad to see how confused you
are. Two paragraphs above, you say that war is a necessary evil in our
society. One paragraph above you say no one has the right to decide
life or death ... only God can decide that. Well, which is it? Can
only God decide life or death OR do men have that right when they war?

In the Bible, God specifically allows for war. There is not such passage
which allows for abortion. I am not the one who's confused here. Part of
that may be your inability to differentiate between neccesary and
optional, or the difference between putting down dissention, and
societal threats, and terminating an innocent life, which poses no
threat

You CAN'T have it both ways.

But you're trying to make a univesal rule which fits all cases. Such is
not the case.

Make a decision and stick with it. Don't
be so wishy washy. Hell, I'd have no problem with you being vehemently
anti abortion IF you valued other human life as much as an unborn fetus.
But you don't.

And no one can, because not all cases are based on the same criteria.
You have to be able to evaluate each case on it's own merits.

I could turn this around and say that I'd have no problem with you being
so vehemently pro-rights, IF you valued the rights of all human life
(including the unborn fetus), But you don't.

Her rights and
responsibilities regarding the decisions that affect her body and mind
must be taken into consideration and take precedence over the fetus.

You say that, but have not made the case to support this assertion.

Easy, there are several reasons. We know the wishes of the mother when
she decides to have an abortion. We cannot know the wishes of the
fetus.

So you assume that it would not wish to live?

Safe and legal abortion is less
dangerous then a full term pregnancy.

Not always.

Then there's also the fact that God is
acting through the mother.

Fact? Fact? What fact? You're making an assumption!

It's my assertion that every baby that was
ever aborted would have, if they were allowed to be born, grown up to be
mass murderers.

And that's exactly what it is, an assumption.

God is putting the thought of aborting the fetus into
the mind of the mother to prevent an evil spawn from occuring.

More likely, selfishness and irresponsibility are putting that idea in
her head.

So it's
to society's benefit to allow the mother to exercise Gods will, and
there's no reason to put her in any more danger than necessary by
forcing her into a back alley to do God's work. That's my assertion,
and it's impossible for you to prove otherwise.

Maybe not conclusively, but it's MY assertion that God would not allow a
life to be conceived in the first place, if he didn't want it to go to
term. And that makes more logical sense.

over another, especially when it's usually not an "either-or"
proposition. Unless the result of a full term pregancy, is the death of
the mother, this argument is irrelevant.

Since you don't know that the result of a full term pregnancy won't be
the death of the mother, you have no right to prevent her from ending
the pregnancy if she feels that's in her best interest. So the argument
is completely relevant.

Medical professionals can make a very accurate prediction as to the
chances of preganacy related death.

Usually it's a decision of a life vs. someone's convenience. When viewed
in this perspective, it's a lot more callous.

Now that's an irrelevant argument.

Not in my book.

Above, you are giving YOUR life more
consideration then the innocent victims of war. Hell, you're giving
even less then your life, but your "way of life" and your freedom more
consideration then the innocent victims of war. If you were SO
concerned about giving all life equal treatment, you'd be willing to
subject yourself and America to being ruled by any two bit foreign
dictator *if* it could prevent the loss of ANY lives by fighting.

That's a stretch that I'd expect from a liberal. But I would think you'd
know better Steve.
You are using the elements of a complex concept like war, as a
justification for abortion. They're not the same thing, and there are

No, I'm not. There are plenty of better reasons to justify the
availability of safe and legal abortion then by comparing it to war.
The reason I'm comparing it to war is so that it's plainly obvious just
how inconsistent YOUR views on the value of life are. You're willing to
condemn innocent people to die just for the concept of YOUR personal
freedom. But you're not willing to let someone else do the same thing.

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Where your
arguement fails, is that you assume that I'm the only one who wants
"freedom". I am not alone in my conviction to defend our society from
those who would see to its demise. There are many people who
collectively agree on these policies. In the case of abortion, the
decision to end a life, is much too great to be left to one person.

This is getting to be such a long post, that my editor cannot load it
all. So what came afterward was lost. I've tried to snip the parts which
are outdated.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

I'm not denying anything. Only downplaying the significance of the
"health issue" as a criteria for choosing abortion.

Of course you'd have to downplay the significance of the health issue,
along with any other real issue that doesn't fit your opinion.

That's a cheap shot. I only meant that the "health" issue is not the
focal point, or the germaine issue, when most women contemplate
abortion. If you wish to debate that, I'd love to see the supporting
evidence.

Again, you're still trying to downplay it. It's always an issue. And how
do you know it's not a/the germane issue when women contemplates abortion?
How do you know that they don't want to go through pregnancy because of
all the changes their body will undergo that will affect them for the rest
of their life? How can you even possibly imagine for a single second that
women don't think about the life altering changes their body undergoes
during pregnancy and childbirth? You just aren't thinking clearly.

Abortion is normally not done for health reasons, but for
convenience. Shallow, callous, immoral, and irresponsible, but
convenience.

It doesn't really matter what you think the reasons are. Your
morality and whether you believe it's callous, shallow and
irresponsible isn't an issue here. First because in a free
society it shouldn't translate to another person with their own
right to control their reproductive process and second because I
thought we decided to restrict the discussion to legal issues and
leave morality and religion out of it.

Steve, while we can agree that specific, recognized, and organized
religions can be excepted from the discussion, because they have no
real relevance, the same cannot be said for morality. Our whole
legal system, and the basis by which the basic laws are created, is
based of a particular sense of morality. Morality transcends
religion, and it's the ruler by which we gauge our actions. Without
morality, how could we justify a ban on any sort of killing?
Afterall, it could be argued that it's someone's personal choice, to
kill another. But we have a sense of morality which says that the
taking of another life is wrong, and we wrote laws to address this.
Abortion is the same thing. As long as

Yes, yes, wonderful, all well and good. But it's not the issue here
at all. The issue here is that legally, today, abortion is not
murder. That's the law, with all of the morality behind it.

For which you deny that a mistake could not have been made, based on an
improper assumption that the unborn fetus is not a life, worth
considering, either legally or morally?

I don't have to consider that at all. I can even stipulate that the unborn
fetus is a life, worth considering both legally and morally. But it
doesn't rate high enough to deserve taking away the mother's right to do
with her body as she sees fit. See below for the reasons.

people feel that it is morally wrong, there will be people who push
for laws to restrict it. One could make the case that those who see
nothing wrong with the callous termination of a life, and who
justify it as "a dependant fetus" or "it's not really a life until
it's born" and any other excuse, are only trying to appease their
conscience, for their own lack of morality.

And one can also make the case that those who want to push their
morality on others are presumptious *******s.

Most criminals also feel that way. But we see who's viewpoint is more in
line with the preservation of a harmonious society.

In this case, we're not talking about criminals or criminal behavior or
any behavior that harms society in any way. In fact, it can easily be
shown that the availability of safe and legal abortion is much more
beneficial to society then outlawing it. So your analogy falls flat on
it's face.

No it doesn't. Society reserves the right to pass sentence
on individuals who have been found to be a danger to
society. Remember, we're talking legally, not morally here.

Of course it does. Society will not fare any differently if
the individual spends the rest of his life in jail or is
killed.

It costs money to house, feed, and provide medical care for
these scumbags. We are running out of room to keep the seemingly
increasing numbers of the criminal element. Plus, there is
always the chance that he'll either escape, or be parolled by a
bleeding heart liberal, who feels that he's "suffered long
enough".

Money is not the issue since it costs more to kill them.

??????? I'd like to hear your rationale for that statement. How
could it be cheaper to feed, house, cloth, and give medical care to
an inmate for 30+ years, than to give him one big electric shock, or
a shot of lethal chemicals?

Because of our legal system. Look up the figures for yourself.

I assume you're talking about the red tape surrounding the often long
process, of being on death row. If that's the case, I might be inclined
to believe you. But that only underscores another reason to streamline

Good, because it's true.

the process, and eliminate the red tape. As it were, it still only costs
a bit more for legal representation for appeals. Keeping a prisoner
alive on death row, is no different than the money spent to support a
life sentence.

Hmm. Here you want to streamline the death process, likely increasing the
chances of an innocent person being killed by the state. That doesn't
sound like you value life very much.

Otherwise, once the scumbag is dead, it costs no further money.

Yeah, until the streamlined process results in the state killing an
innocent person. Then the cost of the lawsuit will be enough keep hundreds
of people in jail for the duration of their natural lives.

Room is not an issue because room will always be made for someone
guilty of a capital crime.

But at what cost? Do we continue to build more and more prisons (In
places where people shout NIMBY!), or do we start letting "lesser"
criminals (like drug dealers) loose to make room for the really
"bad" guys?

Again, look up the figures for the percentage of the prison population
that is on death row and/or are in for life without parole compared
to the overall prison population. There will always be room for them
because they are an insignificant percentage. If you really want to
make room for more really bad guys, all you have to do legalize and
control and tax certain recreational drugs like pot. Then you'd have
all the room in prison you need.

The old, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy? There is no
societal benefit to legalizing controlled substances. They

Wrong. We've found that to be wrong with alcohol.

only benefit simple minded people, with low self esteem, and a lack of
discipline, who seemingly can't cope with life, without an "escape".

Right. I certainly hope you don't smoke, drink alcohol or coffee, eat
chocolate, etc. Because if you do engage in any activity where an
ingested, inhaled or injected chemical produces any sort of stimulus on
your brain that you enjoy, other than for simple sustenance, you are just a
simple minded person, with low self esteem and a lack of discipline, who
seemingly can't cope with life, without an "escape".

There aren't really that many of them compared to the rest of the
prison population. Parole is not an issue because capital crimes
generally are not elligable for parole no matter whether a
bleeding heart liberal thinks they've suffered long enough.

Like you've said before, laws can be changed. Pardons can be issued,
and as long as the criminal lives, there is always a chance that he
could be set free.

That's true. Which is why I'm for the death penalty. I just can't
understand how you can be, given your stated belief that it's wrong to
put one life ahead of another.

If they're on equal terms.

Wonderful! In the case of abortion, they are not on equal terms because
the fetus is physically dependent on the mother and therefore must succumb
to the wishes of the mother. Whether you like it or not, that's the
reality of the situation.

I've tried to explain it before. The death penalty is justified, due to
the criminal having committed a crime (usually murder), by which he
deserves the ultimate forfeiture of his rights, and as an assurance that
this person can no longer be a danger to society. A far cry from the
termination of innocent lives for simple convenience, and an escape from
responsibility.

You are assuming too much here. We have no way of knowing who will
be in any target area, at any given time.

Of course we do. When reconisance photos show civilians surrounding
military targets, we know they are there. Hell, we even make that
information public ... and bomb the crap out of it anyway.

That sort of data changes by the minute. We cannot be certain at any
given point just WHO is where. Afterall, we sent in missiles not once,

We might not know just WHO is there. But we do know SOMEONE is there.
Have you not been paying attention?

but twice based on info on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. We still
can't verify if we actually got him. Most people in the know, now
believe he's still alive. So if we can't rely on the accuracy of hour
old info, how can we ever justify any attack?

I'm talking about immediate info, not hour old info. When we know for
a fact that a military justified target, say a AAA piece, is in the middle
of a known for a fact densely populated area, especially an area where
people are known to be used as human shields, and we hit it anyway, knowing
for a fact that innocent civilians are going to die, and they end up dead.
Do you deny that cases such as this have ever happened?

for abortion the INTENT of the process is to end the pregnancy.
The killing of the fetus is the unintended but necessary
byproduct.

Since one goal is dependant on the other, they cannot be looked at
as separate issues. That comparison is little more than an exercise
in semantics.

Wrong. There are plenty processes where one step follows and depends
on another and yet can still be looked at as separate issues.

Name them.

Name them? It's impossible to name them all because there are billions of
them. Here's one: Assembling a car. You have to put the piston in the
engine before you close up the engine. You have to put the engine in the
car before you drive it away. You also have to put wheels and tires on the
car before you drive it away. But putting in the piston in the engine and
putting the wheels on the car can still be looked at as separate issues in
the process of assembling a car.

You want me to give a few more examples? It's just so easy, but not worth
the typing if you get the idea without it. Of course, you'll say that
assembling a car has nothing to do with abortion. That's because it's only
intended to show you that it's possible to have a process where one step
follows and depends on another, yet still are separate issues. In that way
and that way alone, it's just like abortion.

You'll have to do better if you want to single out abortion as an
exception to that.

No, you'll have to do better than a simple contradiction to make your
case that a cause and effect relationship can be considered separate
issues when they are intrinsincally linked.

See above. Do you want more examples?

One is a direct result of the other. It's THAT simple. That makes them
linked and not seperate. I want to see you realistically do one without
the other. You're starting to tapdance like a liberal now.

I'm the one who's saying you can't do one without the other. Currently you
can't end a pregnancy in the first trimester without killing the fetus.
But ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. If you
actually believe what you're saying when you talk about INTENT being the
determining factor when considering whether a killing is murder, then you
MUST accept the fact that abortion is not murder if the INTENT of the mother
is to end the pregnancy and not kill the fetus. If the fetus happens to
die during the abortion, that's collateral damage.

In fact, the very reason that abortion is not murder is because the killing
of the fetus is not the INTENT. The reason someone can be charged with 2
counts of homicide if the kill a pregnant woman and her baby is that their
INTENT was to kill, not to end the pregnancy.

Follow the logical criteria, and you'll see where the chips fall.
Were the victims of the "collateral damage" the intended target? No.
Did we willfully seek out and plan to kill those people? No.

They were not the intended target. But we did willfully seek out and
plan to kill those people, yes.

No, Who are "those people"? Innocent civilians are never a legitimate
military target. Our targets were exclusively command and control
centers, and military installations.

You are denying that innocent civilians are killed when we target command
and control centers, and military installations? Because doing that is
just as stupid as denying that the fetus is killed during an abortion.

Exact same situation as abortion.

I don't see it that way. Besides, you cannot compare a justified
military campaign, to the killing of an innocent life.

Of course you can. It's an extremely easy comparison, especially when
innocents are killed during a justified military campaign. For you to deny
that such an easy and fitting comparison can be made at all is tantamount
to you
admitting defeat on the whole issue.

But I'd love to see a general officer or President brought up on
charges of involuntary manslaughter when there is collateral
damage as a result of their policy or actions. The fact that they
aren't most likely means that *legally*, collateral damage does
not fit any of your definitions above.

Because war is handled quite differently than civilian law. The
"victorious" side is not charged with anything as a consequence of
suppressing a threat. The "aggressors", can be charged with "war
crimes", such as the case with the Nueremburg trials, Milosevic, and
likely Saddam, if he's ever found alive.

Ah, so you're saying morality has nothing to do with it and it's just
that the rights of the more powerful entity take precedence. You're
making progress.

Morality does have much to do with it. Vanquishing a threatening enemy
is a justifiable killing. Abortion is not.

You're confused again. Above you just said that the "victorious" side is
not charged with anything, presumably because they were victorious, not
because they were morally correct. Now you're saying morality does have
much to do with it. Vanquishing a threatening enemy is a justifiable
killing in who's mind, the victor or the vanquished? For example, in Iraq,
we are the threatening enemy that many Iraqi's are trying to vanquish. So
in your mind, it must be justifiable for them to kill our soldiers using
whatever means available to them in order to vanquish us. You should
really give this matter a lot more thought before showing your hand and how
confused it is.

Hmmmm. You finally admitting that there is no such thing as a
consistent set of morals, and that whatever ones you believe to be
true may not be right afterall? Or are you just admitting that you
like to make up whatever rules fit into your preconceived notions as
you go along and that you're morally inconsistent?

There is no universal truth. I did not make up the rules. And I do not

No, but you're trying to.

enjoy being taken to task for the events which put them into place. But
if your only justification for abortion, is that since morality is
inconsistent people therefore have the right to selectivly make
judgement calls to fit their convenience, it sends a very frightening
message that our very moral fiber is open to individual interpretation,
and the door to anarchy cracks open.....

If that was my only justification for abortion, you'd be right. But it's
not. I've already listed 4 or 5 other justifications. For the sake of
space, I won't go through them again.

Not a moral one.

Then there was not a moral one for restricting abortion either ... at
least by a consistent set of morals, not your conflicting set of
morals.

Then by your own twisted logic, there is no moral justification for ANY
law. Welcome to anarchy.

Not at all. There is plenty of moral justification for laws that protect
people from the harmful actions of other independent individuals IF those
laws don't restrict someone from exercising freedoms that don't harm other
independent individuals. There is also plenty of moral justification for
laws which prevent the government from restricting individuals from
exercising their rights, especially when those rights don't show a
measurable detriment to society on any other independent individual.

I would agree with you, that keeping the government out of decision
making, is a noteworthy goal. However, this is not about government
control as much as it is a moral decry of the killing of another
innocent life, for no other reason than it's convenient.

Good. You can morally decry it all you want, as long as you don't get
the government to prevent it.

The who else would? Who is in charge of enforcing those rules which are
supposedly based on morality?

Obviously, law enforcement is responsible for enforcing the law, whatever
it's based on. I just don't want you to make an amoral law, like one that
prevents the availability of safe and legal abortion.

I don't have a problem is the fetus is ruled as genetically damaged,
or the fetus is a direct threat to the life of the mother. But I
have a BIG problem when abortion is used to cover up promiscuity and
irresponsibility.

OMG, now you're getting into the government making decisions on
whether to abort a fetus based on it's genetics, and whether the
government would rule it as "genetically damaged." While I also have
a problem with using abortion to cover up promiscuity and
irresponsibility, I have a MUCH BIGGER problem with the government
ruling a fetus as "genetically damaged" and basing abortion decisions
on that.

The government? How about the OB, in charge? You can tell early on in a
pregancy if the fetus will have severe birth defects, or other
"problems" in this case, the choice would be the mother's, with the
endorsement of her doctor.

Oh, it's only up to an OB, any OB, with no laws or government guidelines
involved? Then a women would only have to find an OB to say that the fetus
is likely to have unspecified "problems" and it can be aborted. Hell,
everyone has unspecified "problems." That's not
much of a change from what we have today. And if the "right to lifers" can
agree to that, I'm sure the rest can also. It's not right morally, but at
least it gives the desired effect, which is a safe and legal abortion to a
women who wants one.

Ah, finally we can end this. Legally, society has
specifically
exempted
aborting a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy from being
murder. Just like your other exemptions.

The exemption of a fetus from protection under the law, is immoral.

Preventing a woman from having the option of a safe and legal
abortion, is immoral.

Why? There is no moral basis for protecting the right to end a pregancy.

Then there's no moral basis for any of the rights we have. We might just
as well live under total government control. If you're right, then there's
certainly no moral basis for any of our freedoms if they come at the
expense of a single life.

Why should the mother be given the right to play God? It's not her
choice either.

Of COURSE it's her choice. It's certainly more her choice than yours.

Not it's not. The mother is only the vessel by which a life is
constructed. She has no more right to interfere with it, than anyone
else. I know if I envoke the name of God, that people get all weak in
the knees, and fly off the handle, and start looking for Jerry Fallwell
clones, but that's how I believe.

The fact that SHE is the vessel by which a life is constructed is precisely
why she has more of a say in the use of that vessel then YOU do.

If the mother decides to have an abortion, who are YOU to say it's
not God's will that it be done and God is acting through her?
How can you or anyone else be so sure of what God's will is?

Since we cannot be sure, we need to err on the side of morality, and
give the benefit of the doubt that God would prefer that all life
which he has blessed, he would want to come full term.

Why do you have to err on any side? Just you don't play God at all
and let the mother make her own decisions.

Because it's not her decision to make!

There's no way it could possibly not be her decision to make. Of course,
you'd like to take the power to decide away from her. But it must be her
decision in the first place for you to even be able to make a law that
takes it away. You can't take away something someone doesn't have.

Even if you succeed in outlawing safe and legal abortion, it's STILL her
decision to make. And no matter how you look at it, it's more HER
decision to make then it is YOURS. You should not be involved in her
decision in ANY way.

A simple stroke of a pen, and you're supposed to lower the bar for
morality? I'm sorry, but it's just not that easy.

Again, we're talking about legality here. Legally, abortion is not
murder. That's just something you have to come to terms with. It's a
self evident fact. I'm just hoping we don't lower the bar for
morality by making abortion illegal.

I would see it as raising the bar, as it will reduce the number of
shameless killing of innocent lives, any one of which could be the next
Einstein or Mozart.

It would no more reduce the number of shameless killing of innocent lives
then making abortion illegal would increase the number of unwanted babies
who are likely to turn out as the next "Jack the Ripper", Gacy or Chapman.

Which has no bearing at all on the current viability of the fetus
or of the terminal patient. How do you know the cure for whatever
they have, even if it's brain death, won't come about the day
after they are terminated?

I don't know for sure, whether a cure for some illness would be
found. You make a good case for cryogenics. But I DO know, that a
normal fetus stands a VERY good chance of being born healthy, if
allowed to. Those odds are much better.

Which again, doesn't matter a single bit so there's no point
belaboring it. When the normal fetus is born healthy, legally killing
it is not an option.

And allowing to to make it to that point is an equal moral imperative.

Wrong. It can't possibly be of equal moral imperative for the simple
reason that a fetus is not the same as a healthy, born baby. The fact that
it may one day become a baby is not the same as it being a baby today. You
might like to treat them as equal moral imperative. But to do that is to
deny the facts of the situation.

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

easier morally, for people to accept abortion, if they truly believe
that "it's only a bunch of cells", and not an individual life. When

If that's what it takes for someone to accept it, fine. Besides, there's
no way you can prove that it really is any more then "only a bunch of
cells" with the potential to become a human life.

abortion first became legal, there were many people who believed that a
fetus didn't become a life until its head popped out, after 9 months.
That's why I beleive that abortion was made legal before the issue of
"when it becomes a life" was fully explored. I would support a
moratorium on abortion until the issue is finally resolved.

And I would support a moratorium on changing the current law which makes
abortion safe and legal until the issue is finally resolved.

I may have to accept the fact that the law states that abortion is
legal. I do not accept that it's morally justified.

That's true. But you do have to accept the fact that you're judging
it by your morals, which are not necessarily the same as everyone
else.

You make it sound like I'm alone here. Like I said before, if we are

Oh, I know you're not alone. There are plenty of people who have an
inconsistent set of morals. In fact, there have been very few throughout
history who had a consistent set of morals. And they've generally been
very noteworthy individuals. But you don't seem to be able to accept the
fact that you're being inconsistent. And that's a problem.

going to hold a court of judgement, everytime a particular moral comes
under question, we might as well abandon all of our laws, since they are
all ultimately based on a moral premise. If we don't uphold these
morals as standards, then the rationale for any law becomes subjective.

The rational for any law IS subjective. Some of them have almost total
agreement within society, like the laws preventing murder, rape, incest,
etc, etc. And others have an almost 50-50 split within society, like any
law restricting safe and legal abortion. It's actually my belief that much
more than 50 percent of our society would like to see abortion remain safe
and legal. At least that's the result of my own personal very limited
sampling. But since I don't have figures, I'll accept a 50-50 split.

Collateral damage is not accidental death. It took the
willful act of someone else to end the victim's life. It's
not like a car accident.

It IS an accidental killing, unless the victim was the intended
target.

In the case of where the innocent victim is forced to be in the
proximity of a military target and the target is destroyed, it is
NO accident.

Forced? Who forced them?

The power brokers (i.e., the ones with the guns) in whatever country
we're fighting. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Then we cannot be held responsible for the desperate and despicable acts
of the enemy's leadership.

Now you're confused again. In the mind of the enemy's leadership, they are
doing everything possible to vanquish a threatening enemy. Therefore, they
are morally justified to place military targets in civilian areas and it's
the enemy who blows up those targets knowing civilians are going to die who
are committing the despicable acts.

You know why they're doing that, right? It's not a tactically effective
solution for the protection of the target. But it is a very effective
strategic solution for vanquishing the threatening enemy. When their
population as well as the rest of the world sees the dead innocent
civilians, it brings sympathy to their cause. And that's very important,
especially when it's obvious that the threatening enemy is the stronger force.

I know that you aren't going to deny that if some other nation, say Canada,
invaded the US to take away our WMDs that we have been known to use in the
past, you would do just about anything to vanquish those Canadians.

And what about the police officer who does intend to shoot
someone, and pulls the trigger and hits them and kills them. But
it turns out that it was the wrong person and in the heat of the
moment, the officer thought they had a gun pointed at him.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the ensuing
investigation, the officer could be charged with reckless homicide,
or it could be ruled as a justified action. Police officers are
under a great deal of stress, and often have to make split second
decisions, which could result in their life being placed on the
line. Sometimes, in the flash of a second, a pack of cigarettes
could be mistaken for a gun. The last thing a perp, should be doing
when a cop shouts the order to halt, is to reach into their pocket
for something. There's no way the cop can know what's in your
pocket, and he has to assume the worst.

My point exactly, which is why it's not an accident.

That particular case is not. But that's not the original case which I
presented.

So?

You're wrong. It falls under the exact same criteria. Just like war,
safe and legal abortion is a necessary evil, trading human life for
freedom.

Abortion is only "necessary", if the health of the mother is threatened.
Any other case and it becomes purely optional.

In that case, every right you have, every freedom you have is not
"necessary." It's purely optional to be able to read what you want, say
what you want, travel where you want, etc. You could live perfectly fine
under a totalitarian dictatorship that would restrict everything you do,
every move you make, every decision in your life. As long as your health
is not threatened, it's ok. Really, why should you be able to make any
decisions for yourself if your health is not threatened?

Now, refining the above to something more realistic, many of your freedoms
are actually to a large detriment to society as well as other individuals.
So, if you are willing to restrict the right of a mother to have an
abortion because it's "optional" and not "necessary" unless the life of the
mother is restricted, then you should really be willing to restrict the
right of everyone to boat, drive on a vacation, or do any other activity
that harms society for your own personal, optional, enjoyment. Are you
willing to do that?

And who's life for who's freedom? And at what cost, and for what reason?

You're trading the life of the fetus for the freedom of the mother. The
cost is the life of the fetus. The reason is to let the mother have
control over her reproductive process, her health, her body, her freedom.
These are simple questions. Now, in my boating example above, you're
trading the health of the planet for your simple pleasures. That doesn't
seem like anywhere near as good a trade as safe and legal abortion.

You are so entirely inconsistent in your opinions that it's not even
funny anymore. It's actually getting pretty sad to see how confused
you are. Two paragraphs above, you say that war is a necessary evil
in our society. One paragraph above you say no one has the right to
decide life or death ... only God can decide that. Well, which is it?
Can only God decide life or death OR do men have that right when they
war?

In the Bible, God specifically allows for war. There is not such passage
which allows for abortion. I am not the one who's confused here. Part
of

You actually believe that everything God can possibly do, say or think is
written in the bible?

that may be your inability to differentiate between neccesary and
optional, or the difference between putting down dissention, and
societal threats, and terminating an innocent life, which poses no
threat

I'm perfectly capable of differentiating between all of those things. Your
problem is that you don't recognize the fact that you have an inconsistent
set of morals and that because they are inconsistent, you shouldn't be
allow to force your individual set of morals on someone else. Societal
morals can be enforced, and they are. Currently, safe and legal abortion
is morally correct as far as our society is concerned.

You CAN'T have it both ways.

But you're trying to make a univesal rule which fits all cases. Such is
not the case.

I'm not trying to do any such thing. I'm trying to show you how
inconsistent you are, and your statements are inconsistent when it's
convenient for you to make them so. It's not very hard to show at all,
especially when you make such absolute black and white statements that
contradict each other.

Above was just one good example, i.e., When you're trying to justify your
belief that abortion is wrong, you say "no one has the right to decide life
or death ... only God can decide that." But when you're trying to justify
the death penalty or war, you say that man has the right to decide life and
death. Now, no matter what one's beliefs are regarding the death penalty,
war, and abortion, it should be patently obvious that either man has a
right to decide life and death issues OR only God can decide that. It just
cannot
be both ways. They are mutually exclusive concepts that are at the very
core of a whole host beliefs.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously at all and have any weight
to them, they have to have some sort of consistent foundation. Otherwise,
they're just all over the place and can be safely discarded as mad ravings.

So, you have to decide which one is correct, and work from there. I.e., is
it correct that man has a right to decide cases of life and death? Or is
it correct that only God can decide life and death.

Once you make that decision, stick with it and justify your opinions
based on that solid foundation. If you can logically justify your opinion
based on your newfound solid foundation, fine and good. But if you find
that your opinions don't fit your solid foundation, be prepared and willing
to change your opinion. If you can't do all of that, you're not worth
arguing with.

I've made my decision and am sticking with it. My solid foundation is that
man does have the right to make life and death decisions, and that right is
not relegated only to God. And I can justify my positions based on that
solid foundation.

Now it's your turn to decide. If you decide that only God can make life
and death decisions, then you cannot justify self defense as a reason to
take someone's life, you cannot justify war as a means to settle a dispute,
you cannot justify the death penalty.

On the other hand, if you decide that man does have the right to make life
and death decisions, those things are justifiable. Of course, you can
still be anti-abortion. But you must then justify your opinion on some
other basis than "only God can make life and death decisions" and that
factor becomes out of play. I'm sure there are other ones you can come up
with. But restricting life and death decisions to only God cannot be a
valid one if you accept the validity of the death penalty, war, and
self-defense.

Make a decision and stick with it. Don't be so wishy washy. Hell,
I'd have no problem with you being vehemently anti abortion IF you
valued other human life as much as an unborn fetus. But you don't.

And no one can, because not all cases are based on the same criteria.
You have to be able to evaluate each case on it's own merits.

But you have to have a solid foundation to evaluate each case. You just
cannot be taken seriously if you say in some cases, only God can decide
life and death but in other cases, man can decide.

I could turn this around and say that I'd have no problem with you being
so vehemently pro-rights, IF you valued the rights of all human life
(including the unborn fetus), But you don't.

Ah, but I do. I value the rights of all human life. I just recognize the
fact that in every case where there is a dispute, one human's rights must
be given precedence over another human's rights. If there's no dispute,
then there's no need to decide who has precedence. But when there is a
dispute, there's no getting around it.

Her rights and responsibilities regarding the decisions that
affect her body and mind must be taken into consideration and
take precedence over the fetus.

You say that, but have not made the case to support this assertion.

Easy, there are several reasons. We know the wishes of the mother
when she decides to have an abortion. We cannot know the wishes of
the fetus.

So you assume that it would not wish to live?

No. I assume only that we cannot know what your wishes were when you were
a fetus, or even if you had any wishes. That's enough.

Safe and legal abortion is less dangerous then a full term pregnancy.

Not always.

Ok, I can live with restricting an abortion where it's more dangerous to
the mother than a full term pregnancy if you can live with allowing
abortion in any case where it's not. It won't be significantly different
than what's happening today.

Then there's also the fact that God is acting through the mother.

Fact? Fact? What fact? You're making an assumption!

What, are you saying that God does not act through us? That we have self
determination, will, and that God is not an all powerful and omniscient
deity? Now you're sounding like an agnostic.

It's my assertion that every baby that was ever aborted would have, if
they were allowed to be born, grown up to be mass murderers.

And that's exactly what it is, an assumption.

No, it's an assertion not an assumption.

God is putting the thought of aborting the fetus into the mind of the
mother to prevent an evil spawn from occuring.

More likely, selfishness and irresponsibility are putting that idea in
her head.

What, and God doesn't put those thoughts in people's heads for a purpose?
I'm sure if it would achieve his goal, he would put whatever thoughts in
your head he wanted.

So it's to society's benefit to allow the mother to exercise Gods
will, and there's no reason to put her in any more danger than
necessary by forcing her into a back alley to do God's work. That's
my assertion, and it's impossible for you to prove otherwise.

Maybe not conclusively, but it's MY assertion that God would not allow a
life to be conceived in the first place, if he didn't want it to go to
term. And that makes more logical sense.

That makes no sense at all. To believe that, you have to believe that God
controls some things and not others, that God is not omniscient, that he is
flawed. Isn't it true that everything that happens which we mere mortals
think of as bad is really Gods will toward a greater purpose? Didn't the
holocaust guilt the world into allowing the forming if Israel? Believe me
when I tell you that it's obvious God doesn't mind a bit of suffering, even
a whole lot
of suffering, he doesn't mind the loss of a single life, or even the loss
of 12 million lives if it's for the greater good. The loss of the life of
a fetus toward the greater good of human rights makes logical sense.

over another, especially when it's usually not an "either-or"
proposition. Unless the result of a full term pregancy, is the death
of the mother, this argument is irrelevant.

Since you don't know that the result of a full term pregnancy won't be
the death of the mother, you have no right to prevent her from ending
the pregnancy if she feels that's in her best interest. So the
argument is completely relevant.

Medical professionals can make a very accurate prediction as to the
chances of preganacy related death.

Yeah, right. If that was the case, there would never be a death of a
mother during delivery.

Usually it's a decision of a life vs. someone's convenience. When
viewed in this perspective, it's a lot more callous.

Now that's an irrelevant argument.

Not in my book.

I know not in your book. Because your book is an inconsistent set of
ravings not based on any single foundation of a moral code.

Above, you are giving YOUR life more consideration then the
innocent victims of war. Hell, you're giving even less then your
life, but your "way of life" and your freedom more consideration
then the innocent victims of war. If you were SO concerned about
giving all life equal treatment, you'd be willing to subject
yourself and America to being ruled by any two bit foreign
dictator *if* it could prevent the loss of ANY lives by fighting.

That's a stretch that I'd expect from a liberal. But I would think
you'd know better Steve. You are using the elements of a complex
concept like war, as a justification for abortion. They're not the
same thing, and there are

No, I'm not. There are plenty of better reasons to justify the
availability of safe and legal abortion then by comparing it to war.
The reason I'm comparing it to war is so that it's plainly obvious
just how inconsistent YOUR views on the value of life are. You're
willing to condemn innocent people to die just for the concept of YOUR
personal freedom. But you're not willing to let someone else do the
same thing.

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Where your
arguement fails, is that you assume that I'm the only one who wants
"freedom". I am not alone in my conviction to defend our society from
those who would see to its demise. There are many people who
collectively agree on these policies. In the case of abortion, the
decision to end a life, is much too great to be left to one person.

Where your argument falls is that a woman getting a safe and legal abortion
has no measurable impact on society as whole. So while the needs of the
many may outweigh the needs of the few (a socialist statement that I'm
surprised to see YOU make, but fine) in this case, the needs of the few can
be supplied without any detriment to the many. That should be a
determining factor in whether a right can be exercised or not.

This is getting to be such a long post, that my editor cannot load it
all. So what came afterward was lost. I've tried to snip the parts which
are outdated.

Well, that's a sure sign that it's time to end it. So go ahead and have
the last word if you want to. I won't bother to respond anymore unless you
have some sort of enlightenment, which I severely doubt will happen.

Steve