Balbus, This is tedious. What I've said is very simple. There are external social and economic factors that impact the abortion rate, but it is ultimately the result of individual choices. The single largest societal factor in the equation is the unfettered availability of abortion. As I've already noted, abortion skyrocketed after it was declared legal by judicial fiat. (You've questioned this but offered no evidence to the contrary.) States that have enacted even modest abortion restrictions (such as parental notification, informed consent, waiting periods, and ending public subsidies) have substantially reduced the abortion rate. As for reducing unwanted pregnancies, I contend that access to contraception is not a major factor. It's easily found and obtained. People who choose to engage in casual sex without taking precautions are simply irresponsible; no one else is to blame. Then again, as I already said, the only sure way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is to abstain from premarital sex. You can derisively scoff at this as a hallow slogan, but it's an indisputable fact. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. People who are totally unwilling to accept this consequence should not have sexual relations. Married couples should always be willing to welcome an "unplanned" child. The common use of abortion as birth control is a sign of decadence, not oppression by evil right-wing villains.
I cannot believe you think discussing this subject is tedious, I think many people from the forum would be surprised to find that you think the subject so boring. I mean you have often brought up the subject in completely unrelated threads, why would you do that if you were so uninterested in debating it? Or is it the actual debating of the subject that you find so tedious? Are all your references to it and all your evangelising of the ‘anti’s’ position not being about trying to stimulate debate and test your argument against those of other positions? So what is your agenda? Has it being more about trying to find unquestioning and unthinking converts? I know that what you have said, your ‘anti’ argument, is very simple, and I’m glad you now realise this since I think that is probably your problem you seem to want to make a complex question into a simple one. A yes or no, pro-choice or anti-abortion. Also this simplistic approach means that your argument is often sloppy, you can find yourself flip-flopping, for example you first sent me to a website that says there are social and economic dimensions to abortion then you strongly imply there are not and now you are emphatically admitting there are. I have often questioned your viewpoint and assumptions on this subject and so of course I will look at your interpretation of ‘evidence’. I gave you a logical argument for the increase in abortions after it was made more widely available, you haven’t refuted my premise only disputed it and as the abortion ‘expert’ on this thread it makes me think that you may not have looked at the ‘evidence’ dispassionately. Is it possible that you may be moulding ‘facts’ to fit in with personal prejudices unrelated to the subject? And this attitude that since abortion is to you morally wrong it therefore must be stopped seems to me to have another result of pushing out any need on your part for understanding. You have rationalised everything to fit in with your established viewpoint, since abortion is sinful the people that have them must be sinners. You only need to look at the way you view these people they indulge in sinful lust and personal sexual gratification and they commit the immoral sin of having sex outside of marriage and their behaviour is totally due to the decadence of the individual. I get the feeling that you believed that these people couldn’t be saved through understanding they are somehow pre-ordained to be sinners they are already irrevocably lost. I don’t think I have the right to make sweeping judgements like that and rather than hand out blanket recrimination I would seek understanding. Therefore I would want to know why they have come to get themselves into this position and seek ways to limit it. From what I can tell this is not taking place. Again you say the only sure way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is to abstain from sex, (presumable the kind of sex that can lead to pregnancy). The problem is I’ve already agreed with you on this fact, but that does not make it any the less of a slogan because as I said it is easy to say but harder to accomplish or enforce. Also it doesn’t understand the problem if these people are getting pregnant even when you believe they have ready access to and know how to use contraceptives then telling them to abstain from sex will not help. You might get an increase in the number of unwanted children being born and an increase in the social and economic cost to society, but the underlying reasons for those pregnancies is still unchecked, the question is why are they being irresponsible are you implying that it is just because they are sinful? "Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. People who are totally unwilling to accept this consequence should not have sexual relations." People have gone for years having full penetrative sex without it leading to pregnancy, birth control in a high percentage of cases is enough. Many couples have lived together for years not wanting children and not conceiving any, before deciding to stop using birth control and trying for children. Others have had one or more sexual relationships before choosing the person they wish to settle down with, without them ever resulting in children. Telling people just not to have sex protected or otherwise is just not being realistic. I’m also unsure of where this is leading, would you take away all forms of birth control? "Married couples should always be willing to welcome an "unplanned" child" Yes they should and many do but others don’t, so you should be asking why they don’t? ** I think that this is the problem with the ‘anti’s’ they are not interested in helping people or making their society a better place to live they just want to impose an ideologically based dogma, because they believe they are right. Why do they believe they are right, well from this thread it seems clear, they are not sure themselves. Is the subject really tedious or is being asked to think about people in other terms than as faceless sinners the real problem? Is thinking of these people as human being with problems who may need societies understanding and assistance harder to deal with than just dismissal them as immoral?
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you please." - Mother Theresa I agree It is horrible to think of the many innocent people that have died in the furtherance of the financial and strategic interests of the US?
What I find tedious is not the subject but your long-winded, pompous, condescending diatribes. Then again, maybe you're needlessly complicating a fairly straightforward moral issue, in typical leftist psuedo-intellectual fashion. Defenders of slavery made similar arguments about the "complexity" of the economic situation in the South. I haven't flip-flopped. I've said from the start that the social and economic dimensions are real and need to be addressed, but the main problem is the "supply" side of the issue. I've offered factual evidence showing that the rate of illegal abortions prior to 1973 was vastly inflated by pro-abortion activists, which you've simply ignored. "Choice" is the favored slogan of the proponents of legalized abortion. You seem to believe that individual decisions have no bearing on the subject. Anyone can be redeemed. However, I make no apology for saying that it is an act of depravity to kill one's offpring for the sake of convenience. As I said before, several states have successfully curbed abortion by enacting reasonable restrictions. Abortion on demand fuels irresonsible sexual behavior. No. I'm merely saying that they should not be allowed to kill their unborn babies, just because they neglect to take precautions or those precautions fail. Let me guess: it's society's fault! Again, I'm all for providing the necessary assistance. However, I also respect every individual as a moral agent capable of making real choices. You are the one who reduces people to faceless machines whose actions are determined entirely by external forces.
ALL species commit INFANTICIDE (killing of newborn young) especially in stressful, overcrowded and/or starvation situations. When there isn't enough to go around, infants are killed. Infants are killed when a new "Alpha" comes into power. It isn't about "ethics" in the animal kingdom, but it DOES happen, every day.
WTF? Not in THIS economy! I have four children (most of them "unplanned, all due to contraception failures) I did WELCOME my children, every one. However, if Bear and I did not use contraception (which for some reason you seem to think lets people use sex for pleasure gasp) we figured out we would have FOURTEEN children by now, assuming I breastfed them all, and only had one every 2 years. I don't know about YOU, but I cannot afford FOURTEEN children. I have never had an abortion, never even had to consider it, but birth control does not always work. I have some clients who have gotten pregnant three times while on the pill. Are they supposed to have FOURTEEN or more children? You claim you have an adopted child, I am assuming that you and your wife are unable to concieve. Do you still have sex? If a child is impossible, than isn't you and your wife's sex for PLEASURE only? You only have an advantage over all those hedonistic heathens in that YOU don't have the consequence of pregnancy to worry about. Your hedonism doesn't come with the reality that the rest of us face. Lucky you. You might be singing a different tune if your wife was on her 10 pregnancy.
They might want to consider tubal ligation or vasectomy. Two. (The second is just nine months old now.) I have never condemned contraception; rather, I've condemned wanton sex by those unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.
Not a bad idea, if they are done having children. But I wasn't the one talking about sex without kids being "hedonistic." Wouldn't a tubal or a vas just make sex even more "hedonistic."
Yes, I did. But being sterilized somehow takes the wantoness and hedonism of sex without procreation? I don't get how. People are still fucking for fun.
Oh Huck pleeeeease If long winded, pompous, condescending and diatribe is your description of what is tedious then we- not you - are all the victim of it, just think of how many ‘tedious’ links you have posted in this one thread alone - http://www.roevwade.org/aod.html [*]http://www.democratsforlife.org. [*]http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/keymedical.html [*]http://www.embryoadoption.com [*]http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/pictures.html [*]http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/index.htm [*]http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. [*]http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm [*]http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=414 [*]http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=750 [*]http://www.plannedparenthood.org/education/real/Selected.pdf [*]http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html [*]http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/pictures.html [*]http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=28 [*]http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=627 [*](second time) http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. [*](second time) http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/index.htm [*](third time) http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. That’s more than any other person, and you are not just showing where you got a quote or a piece of information, it is obvious from other comments you have made that you expect people to read them all the way through. ** As I’ve said the moral issue over ‘innocent deaths’ is not so clear cut since so many of the ‘anti’s’ find acceptable the death of innocent people if it fits in with their political viewpoint. Which would seem to imply that if abortion fitted in with their political viewpoint they would find it acceptable? Your use of ‘slavery’ is interesting and I have noticed other ‘anti’s’ equate the defence of choice with the defence of ‘slavery’, why? If you look at it the equation is rather stupid. As a leftie I’m against the exploitation of one set of people by a more powerful set of people and so I’d be opposed to slavery (and other forms of social and economic exploitation). To me to force someone to give birth to a child they do not want, without giving the mother and child adequate provision for a decent future or so that it can be taken away to be given to those that the system says can better bring it up seems like some form of exploitation. You make a big deal about the increase in abortions when they became legal and widely available, I have postulated that this could be due to ‘up take’. You only need to look at medical and dental treatment between pre and post National Heath Service UK. Suddenly treatment was paid for by the state and became more widely available (many poor areas got a doctor for the first time) many people that had not been able to have treatment could. ‘Up take’ was huge, in the 1980 the Conservatives brought in mean testing and the number of treatments it covered have gone down. So the number of procedures goes up when treatment is available and decreases when restrictions are brought in, the thing is do those people not going for treatment still in need the treatment or are they being put off by the restrictions? ** Abortion on demand fuels irresonsible sexual behavior. Another slogan? ** Quote: Telling people just not to have sex protected or otherwise is just not being realistic. I’m also unsure of where this is leading, would you take away all forms of birth control? No. I'm merely saying that they should not be allowed to kill their unborn babies, just because they neglect to take precautions or those precautions fail. And the reason why they don’t take the right precautions is? Are you still saying that these people are just hedonistic sinners that cannot be helped in any way from making these mistakes? ** Why do some married people not want too many kids? Is it because they are sinners? ** Anyone can be redeemed. Redeemed? What do you mean in this context that as long as they pay (monetarily or spiritually) abortion is ok? I did notice that one of the ways you seem to praise for restricting abortion was for them to be more expensive. ** However, I also respect every individual as a moral agent capable of making real choices. This seems to contradict your position, if you respect every individuals right and capability to make their own choice, why not respect them for choosing an abortion? You are the one who reduces people to faceless machines whose actions are determined entirely by external forces. Again your view of what other people ‘are’ is coloured by your own prejudices and I find that incredibly sad, I suppose it is a reassuring and uncomplicated worldview but don’t you see just how drab it is trapped in your black and white world? Think about the statement then look at previous statements of yours. It is you with the certitude of conviction where I ask for understanding you seem to say you already know. But there were a couple of things that give me hope…… **
The hope So you now say that you firmly believe that there are social and economic dimension to the abortion problem, which I’m glad as it is a move away from your previous simplistic outlook. You also insist that you’re in favour of providing all necessary assistance, which I take to mean you are willing to try and bring about a better society. What social and economic changes would you make and how would you go about it?
When did I ever say that sex should only be for procreation? What I've been trying to say (apparently not very well) is that sex should be reserved for a married couple that is united for life and willing to love any children they might conceive. If a couple believes that they have all the kids they can responsibly take care of, then I think sterilization is a very reasonable option for them. Is that clear enough?
I've asked you to clarify what "political viewpoint" you're referring to, and you've never answered me. I've already discussed war and capital punishment with Maggie, and I'm not sure what else to say. If you have any comments on that exchange, let's have them. To recap, though, let me say that I believe it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent people, born or unborn. The most grievous form of exploitation is to be arbitrarily classified as less than human for purposes of sociological expedience. I find it repugnant that anyone would describe the violence of abortion as "medical treatment." Another snide dismissal? The so-called "sexual revolution" and the advent of abortion on demand are inextricably linked. I'm saying that individuals are responsible for their own actions. What a concept! As I've been discussing with Maggie, there are viable alternatives to abortion. You asked if some people were hopeless sinners, and I responded that no one is beyond hope of redemption. I know that you consider yourself far too intelligent to take any religion seriously, but you should at least be familiar with this basic terminology. I've said that they should not be publicly subsidized. Why should I be forced to pay for this barbaric practice? No one has the "right" to snuff out the life of another, unless done in self-defense. What "prejudices" do you mean? My rejection of your atheistic reductionism? When did I ever deny that these factors exist? I've always maintained that they are important but secondary. The primary problem with abortion is its pervasive availability. Since you've repeatedly brought this subject into the discussion, why don't you start with a few specific policy recommendations?
I'm pretty sure that Oregon Right to Life had a booth there, too. They're always looking for volunteers for these types of events. If you want to get involved, check out: http://www.ortl.org/spotlight/fair_calendar_2004.html
Comments like "you consider yourself far too intelligent to take any religion seriously" and "your atheistic reductionism" make be think that I should re-post something I put up earlier I know that for many (not all) anti-abortions their opposition is based in their religious beliefs, (abortion) is wrong because their interpretation of their holy book or a priest’s interpretation of their holy book has told them so. There is no logic or reason needed it has been ordained wrong and so it is wrong. They will not care to find out why people have abortions, or seek understanding or have compassion for the circumstances. Once the woman is impregnated, from that instant, they are to be forced to have the resultant child. Rarely will they care about the circumstances they will not care about before or afterwards just about not allowing an abortion. But religions haven’t a very good history in the field of family planning with religious groups often trying to prevent access to sex education or contraception. The thing is that for some religions it is about getting more souls not how those souls are to live or be sustained, so some churches want more children to be born even into harsh miserable conditions where they are likely to have brutal lives then die, as long as they die "in the church".(Monty Python were making this point in their own satirically humorous way). For other religions population control as a means of having a sustaining environment isn’t important since this world is just some half way house to another place and after rapture and dooms day they will not care. I fear those peoples agenda isn’t about helping people or society by finding out why people seem to want or need an abortion or finding ways to cut down even virtually end people wanting or needing those abortions? They are on a mission and that is to stop abortion being legal and they don’t really care how they do it, in this situation if it looks like democracy will work they will try and change the law, and so they preach. But in the end whatever argument they might use it is still just an irrational held religious thing.
Increasingly it comes back to my observation on entering this debate – This is where the anti-abortionist seem to me to show the paucity of their argument which seems to be based on the idea that since they (and in many cases their religion) says it is wrong then it must be stopped. When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas. The paucity of their argument (huck) I've asked you to clarify what "political viewpoint" you're referring to, No you haven’t actually (huck) I've already discussed war and capital punishment with Maggie, Yes (pages 29-30) and you said that you accepted the innocent being killed in war and said that in some cases people "generally appreciate" those deaths as they were done for a good reason. You also don’t object to the death penalty in principle only that mistakes could be made. This implies that you believe some deaths are moral and others immoral based on what you believe is right and wrong. You said the term ‘pro-life’ was based on the Declaration of Independence. (page 30), were the right to life is ‘sacrosanct’ while admitting that "no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law."(page 30) Thereby admitting that if the law allowed it, it is ok. To which I replied (page 31)– One of the ‘anti’s’ secular arguments seems to be based on some quasi-legal foundation. In the case of the US the words of the Declaration of Independence were ‘men’ are said to have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Well this and much of the rest of US ‘constitutional’ writing is open to interpretation. I mean the man who wrote those words was a slave owner and today the US government and a vast amount of the American people believe inflicting ‘cruel and unusual punishment" on fellow human beings is not only acceptable but seemingly necessary. Then you have to find the balance within the ideas being expressed. Where the DoI states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" the Constitution has "life, liberty, or property" cannot be taken away "without due process of law". The unalienable rights become very quickly open to the interpretation and prejudices of self-interested people with influence. So what are the definitions of ‘life’, ‘liberty’, ‘happiness’ and ‘property’ and how do they fit within the context of the social and economic framework of modern America? Is life purely about existence, if a person was from birth kept in a soundproofed and windowless room and given only given enough bland food and drink to sustain them but nothing else until they died, would that be having a life? In my view and I think any other sane person except the legally pedantic would answer no. So why have the ‘anti’s’ seemingly latched themselves onto that definition? For most people (including Jefferson) there is meant to be something else, to Jeff one was ‘happiness’ which I would expand to be ‘quality of life’. The other thing for Jeff was liberty, freedom. The problem is that the US is a strongly capitalist country and under such a system there will always be economic limits to what a person may wish to do that can also have an effect on a persons quality of life, opportunities, both personal and financial. So what is wrong with the economic system in the US that people weighting up the ‘cost’ of having a child in terms of the limitation on their freedom of action, quality of life and opportunities, feel abortion is the ‘better’ alternative? It could be said that adoption is a way out and I would agree, there are people that cannot have children, and I would hope that this could be used, but again there are social, economic and cultural barriers that need to be addressed. Also the matter of recompense, the person has had to carry a the child, go through the pain of birthing then has ‘their’ property taken away. If market forces were allowed to take over however I think there would soon be a situation where wombs and children would become just another commodity on the market, which I’m not sure the ‘anti’s’ would want. So to me until the ‘anti’s’ stop thinking in the lawyers narrow-minded legal definition of life as existence and factor in the whole social and economic context, it would seem to be only a devise to ‘win’ an argument. And to bring in by legal force what they cannot do by reasoned persuasion. In other words it isn’t about helping people just about trying to control them. Huck your made no comment on this criticism of you position the only reply was at the end of page 30 entitled "short answer to long-winded soapbox" and true to the spirit of the title said very little. ** The paucity of their argument (part two) The argument for anti’s often seems to be based on scoring points not constructing a consistent, rational and viable argument. So their arguments can often seem contradictory. "I'm saying that individuals are responsible for their own actions" But "I've said from the start that the social and economic dimensions are real and need to be addressed" I have consistently and persistently argued for understanding, to find out why these people are acting the way there are, but when I call on you for this understanding you claim that these people are unaffected by any social, cultural or economic influences. You argue that it is all down to their personal responsibility. Then at other times, when it suits your argument, you claim that these people are affected and influenced by social, cultural or economic factors. ** The paucity of their argument (part three) The one argument that is consistent in all this and the one being hammered home at every opportunity is - The primary problem with abortion is its pervasive availability. It is as I’ve already said a purely negative position, is doesn’t seem to me about helping people it seems more like a craving to dictate, it doesn’t seem like a genuine desire to seek comprehension but seemingly to remain ignorant. I mean if they had positive ideas wouldn’t they have brought them up by now? Instead we just get the situation being blamed on ‘sexual immorality’, ‘sexual hedonism’, ‘the sexual revolution’, ‘sex before marriage’ etc. ** The paucity of their argument (part four) When asked what positive things they would do they seem stumped. The only thing Huck can do is ask me for my proposals, but my views are not the same as his and so it is unlikely that many of my proposals would meet with his approval. Please Huck if you have no ideas just say so, if you do please give them as I have asked, don’t pretend you have some but like a child hide the fact you don’t by saying ‘yours first’. **
Abortion is wrong for a very simple reason: it kills an innocent human being. You've not even attempted to "logically" dispute this basic point. Discarding it as "religious" is nothing but a copout. This is completely false. You obviously know nothing about the vast network of pregnancy support centers and adoption agencies that offer very tangible help to women dealing with unplanned pregnancies. This sort of categorical smear is completely irrelevant. Yes, there are Christians who oppose all contraception and care nothing about overpopulation or the environment. I am not one of them. You should examine the paucity of your own arguments more carefully. I reject the notion that there is ever a "need" to kill, unless one's life is in danger. How very compelling. No need to present a "rational" defense of abortion, just deride pro-lifers as "irrational" . . .
You've never even outlined what these "economic and cultural problems" are, let alone presented your own solutions to them. I've argued that the accidental killing of civilians in war is sometimes inevitable and that war itself is regrettably necessary at times. I used the Allied liberation of Europe from Nazi rule as an example. Do you believe that leaving Hitler alone would have been preferable, or do you know of some other way he could have been effectively dealt with? I've had enough of your juvenile sarcasm and innuendo. Share some of your superior wisdom, and be specific! I have never argued that unjust killing by the state is OK as long as it is legal. "Due process of law" involves proving someone guilty of a capital offense such as murder. As I've noted repeatedly, and you've continually ignored, this cannot be morally equated to killing innocent unborn babies for social or economic expedience. What the hell are you talking about, Iraqi prisoner abuse? "A vast amount of the American people" (atrocious grammar reminiscent of George W. Bush) do not consider this scandalous behaviour "acceptable." Regardless, why can't you stick to the subject at hand? The ordering of these rights is very significant. Life comes first. Without it, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness are meaningless. Many adoption agencies subsidize the maternity and delivery expenses of birth mothers, even if they end up choosing to keep their baby. These costs are recovered from nonrefundable fees paid by prospective adoptive parents. If you want to argue that they should be covered by the state, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. It's a basic matter of justice: the law should protect the most helpless of all human beings from violence by others. It's the same principle that liberals rightly apply to economic policy. There's no contradiction here. All of our decisions are influenced by outside factors, but not determined by them. We are not autonomous, but we are free moral agents. You can sneer all you want, but I maintain that abortion on demand is both a symptom and a cause of perverse societal values. Our own unbridled pursuit of pleasure without consequence trumps the right of our offpring to live. In turn, unfettered access to abortion further coarsens us to this travesty. You are a prime example of this moral callousness. I'm not the one suggesting that proper social engineering will virtually eradicate abortion. This is your premise, so why don't you back it up?
Please Huck, try reading the posts rather than just reacting to them, please try and engage rather than just pumping out slogans. Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus Comments like "you consider yourself far too intelligent to take any religion seriously" and "your atheistic reductionism" make be think that I should re-post something I put up earlier I know that for many (not all) anti-abortions their opposition is based in their religious beliefs, (abortion) is wrong because their interpretation of their holy book or a priest’s interpretation of their holy book has told them so. There is no logic or reason needed it has been ordained wrong and so it is wrong. Abortion is wrong for a very simple reason: it kills an innocent human being. You've not even attempted to "logically" dispute this basic point. Discarding it as "religious" is nothing but a copout. This was covered on page 31 I believe. Quote: They will not care to find out why people have abortions, or seek understanding or have compassion for the circumstances. Once the woman is impregnated, from that instant, they are to be forced to have the resultant child. Rarely will they care about the circumstances they will not care about before or afterwards just about not allowing an abortion. This is completely false. You obviously know nothing about the vast network of pregnancy support centers and adoption agencies that offer very tangible help to women dealing with unplanned pregnancies. As I’ve already asked why is it they don’t use them and why is it they are pregnant in the first place? Are they just sinners that cannot be helped? Quote: But religions haven’t a very good history in the field of family planning with religious groups often trying to prevent access to sex education or contraception. The thing is that for some religions it is about getting more souls not how those souls are to live or be sustained, so some churches want more children to be born even into harsh miserable conditions where they are likely to have brutal lives then die, as long as they die "in the church".(Monty Python were making this point in their own satirically humorous way). For other religions population control as a means of having a sustaining environment isn’t important since this world is just some half way house to another place and after rapture and dooms day they will not care. This sort of categorical smear is completely irrelevant. Yes, there are Christians who oppose all contraception and care nothing about overpopulation or the environment. I am not one of them. You should examine the paucity of your own arguments more carefully. First you say it is irrelevant then in the very next sentence you explain its relevance. Quote: I fear those peoples agenda isn’t about helping people or society by finding out why people seem to want or need an abortion or finding ways to cut down even virtually end people wanting or needing those abortions? I reject the notion that there is ever a "need" to kill, unless one's life is in danger. Except, as you have stated, if it is for a cause you agree with. Quote: They are on a mission and that is to stop abortion being legal and they don’t really care how they do it, in this situation if it looks like democracy will work they will try and change the law, and so they preach. But in the end whatever argument they might use it is still just an irrational held religious thing. How very compelling. No need to present a "rational" defense of abortion, just deride pro-lifers as "irrational" . . . This was covered on page 31 I believe. Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus This is where the anti-abortionist seem to me to show the paucity of their argument which seems to be based on the idea that since they (and in many cases their religion) says it is wrong then it must be stopped. When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas. You've never even outlined what these "economic and cultural problems" are, let alone presented your own solutions to them. As I’ve already said some of them were covered by the website you suggested, did you actually read it?
