tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post7767627837540779565..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: Abort, retry, failGevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-70447290046201552262011-03-18T07:01:12.356+01:002011-03-18T07:01:12.356+01:00I'll limit this to the context of the US where...I'll limit this to the context of the US where the anti-abortion movement's history and place within the R platform insures that the so-called fiscal conservative party will never give it up as a plank.<br /><br />It's important to understand that the US political system relies on faith and devotion to ideology, myths and outright fabrications, and a constant "us vs them" atmosphere to motivate the M&S to vote for their parties.<br /><br />In the case of abortion, a common myth is that the American social conservatives have always been outraged at the outcome of Roe vs Wade.<br /><br />In fact, many evangelicals applauded the decision as the first step of ending the back alley abortion system that was incredibly harmful.<br /><br />The only significant American group that was really negative about the decision was the Catholics who were viewed with almost as much suspicion as Jews.<br /><br />The move to fight Roe vs Wade really didn't start until a new breed of Evangelicals began to get politically active. Initially, their fight was to make divorce illegal and to keep miscegenation laws on the books. You can still find pictures of them holding protest signs saying "race mixing is communism" and similar slogans.<br /><br />However, those were two battles doomed to failure and would relegate the "moral right" to the dust bins of history. Instead, they seized on abortion as a moral cause to replace their losing ones, and began a propaganda campaign to demonize it and the women who had them.<br /><br />With the horrors of the back alley abortion system already fading in people's minds, their PR campaign was incredibly successful if not completely honest at times.<br /><br />Nowadays, people would accuse you of lying if you brought up the Southern Baptist Convention's initial support of Row vs Wade.<br /><br />The M&S simply cannot conceive that something so "obvious" was viewed differently until a very effective PR campaign convinced them otherwise.<br /><br />To cut to the heart of the matter, you *can't* convince the leadership of the American right to drop abortion as a plank by arguing rationally about whether it is right or wrong.<br /><br />I would wager that a significant section of the leadership doesn't care about abortion's morality, but view it as an invaluable tool to bludgeon the M&S with to keep them in line and keep them into a "us vs them" mentality that would lead them into voting for people that are literally crazy, retarded, or suffering from dementia over someone from the opposing political party.<br /><br />The only way to get the fiscal conservatives to drop the anti-abortionists, would be to destroy the M&S voting blocks (or rearrange them drastically) which seems outright impossible at this time.<br /><br />I mean, we're talking about people that believe in things like: the gold (or silver bullet) standard is a magic bullet for the economy, animals are people too, the president is a Secret Muslim Kenyan, that Evolution is fake, the Daily Show is a good news source, the Theory of Relativity leads to people not believing in the bible, or cutting taxes always increases tax income for the state.<br /><br />Rational thought and critical thinking is not high on the Amercian priority list, and people with actual educations are eschewed as elitists and seen as the M&S typically view those more competent than them.<br /><br />The American Right simply cannot drop the social conservatives or stop using bigoted talking points (which is a whole other issue) without the M&S turning on them and declaring them RINO's.Hurtz to Farmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508021452949964872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-14732139574293457042011-03-18T00:52:23.888+01:002011-03-18T00:52:23.888+01:00It would only be slightly less than absurd for me ...It would only be slightly less than absurd for me to state my opinion on the matter here, informed as it may be, or to try to debunk the presented argument as most people on the internet are only looking to shove their ideas into others' faces and aren't open to new ones. However I do feel it prudent to comment on the people who seem to have the misconception that the so called "right-wing" mindset is anti-women or anti-choice. Obviously there are extremists, as there are in nearly any debate, but for the most part they should just be ignored unless they have a valid point.<br /><br />However should you choose to make yourself informed on the core ideas argued by the "right-wing" Pro-Life platform then you might think differently. I would suggest the movie "Blood Money". There's an obvious religious bias to it, but I'm sure a self-enlightened such as the one being found here would be able identify the truth from the bias. Really, when you are at a place where you're able to view things more objectively, you can learn a lot from a biased opinion by wherein the falsehood lies and what motivates it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-87486021716095056182011-03-17T17:52:01.265+01:002011-03-17T17:52:01.265+01:00"The Unaborted Socrates" by Philosophy P..."The Unaborted Socrates" by Philosophy Professor Peter Kreeft gives, by far, the most logically sound discussion on Abortion I've ever read. <br /><br />The entire debate, from a purely logical standpoint, comes down to where you define the beginning of life. It is a gray area that not many scientists can actually agree upon.<br /><br />In reality, we've seen what illegal abortion causes - dehumanization of women, rape, back-alley procedures resulting in maiming or death, kids born into broken homes with abusive parents.<br /><br />Sure, it's ultimately the result of a bad decision made by both a man and a woman. Men, at worst, get their paychecks garnished after missing a court date. Women get stigmatized, branded, and their emotional trauma ignored - and that's at best.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-19665397908300173532011-03-17T04:52:07.849+01:002011-03-17T04:52:07.849+01:00Not to mention that this maneuver will only *lose*...Not to mention that this maneuver will only *lose* you votes, as the really hardcore pro-lifers will start voting for God-fearing socialists (lots of those in Europe), and the "I like the free market but I like abortion more" demographic might not be so large. :)Caspernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-34041164651588043282011-03-17T04:39:47.808+01:002011-03-17T04:39:47.808+01:00I think it's a myth that women are mostly pro-...I think it's a myth that women are mostly pro-abortion. Although I could see the evolutionary logic behind that. They do vote marginally more for leftist parties, but I believe it's more to do with their "caring" economic policies.<br /><br />Conservatives would not be affected by your argument as it does not pertain to their reasoning. The simplified version would be: "our society is good, and our society is based on Christianity, therefore the principles of Christianity are good. Christianity opposes abortion, therefore it is good (for our society) to oppose abortion." A version without Christianity (more general) is possible.<br /><br />A libertarian refutation of your argument, based on the principle that the freedom of my fist ends on the freedom of my nose, would be something like this: "becoming pregnant is based solely on the woman's decision to have sex without contraception. Therefore abortion would be punishing the child for something it had no choice in." The woman is the sole responsible party here. The difference between a child and a burglar from your example is that the burglar still had a choice. <br /><br />Thanks for making me think deeper about why *I'm* against abortion. I think I just might be a conservative on this, because I feel my libertarian refutation is a bit wobbly.Caspernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-68073209971270699392011-03-17T00:55:50.751+01:002011-03-17T00:55:50.751+01:00@ Braille...
I too thought of the Judith Jarvis T...@ Braille...<br /><br />I too thought of the Judith Jarvis Thomson article while reading Gevlon's post. I don't have time at the moment to read your link, but I think it's a serious oversimplification of Thomson's argument to say that a fetus is a thief. Her article contained three scenarios that I can remember: the violinist (rape/theft), the expanding child in the tiny house (voluntary sex without contraception), and the people seeds (voluntary sex with contraception). Gevlon's argument is at the violinist stage, but Thomson's goes further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-55713116679060048872011-03-16T14:04:12.258+01:002011-03-16T14:04:12.258+01:00Abortions should continue to be legal.
Simply bec...Abortions should continue to be legal. <br />Simply because: unwanted fetus, no option to remove it, grows into an unwanted child, either becoming 1. dumpster baby(legal offense), 2. dropped in a orphanage(costs more than an abortion), 3. unwanted child being mistreated at home(eventual child abuse). <br />Kid grows up knowing it was unwanted; a mistake. That's no life for a child. Might as well nip it in the bud from the beginning before it becomes a real issue of abandonment. <br />As a side note: The nurses at a planned parenthood guilt trip you when you get one. They question you for hours to make sure this is truly, 100%, completely what you want to do. Yes, I'm absolutely sure I never want a mistake baby. It should always be an option. <br />You pro-life people just don't have a clue probably because you're a man who doesn't need to worry about babies in the first place. <br /><br />It should be a non-issue; like gay marriage. Why should it even come up?!? Who cares?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-89917274753491194622011-03-16T13:23:42.357+01:002011-03-16T13:23:42.357+01:00I'd love to answer your presuppositions [most ...I'd love to answer your presuppositions [most pro-abortionists are women, right wingers are anti-abortion...ummm. for some business interest (?), etc.] <br /><br />But forget that. I'll simply answer that deep thinking on LIFE, the preciousness of it, the fragility of it, the nobility of it is worth protecting. Are there horrible people? Yep. However, society as a whole is cheapened and degraded when life is cheapened.<br /><br />Abortion in general is the ultimate cheapening of life. Circular arguments aside, any society where life is cheap is not a society most would choose to live in.<br /><br />People said we were crazy and loony when we 'anti-abortionists' said infanticide and euthanasia would soon follow and become more common as abortion became less stigmatic. And here we are.<br /><br />Good luck with getting a photo of a politician responding to this argument. I have a sense that the perception of vacuity in the question will no doubt be interpreted as perplexity by those posing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-79230421505174024592011-03-16T04:24:36.284+01:002011-03-16T04:24:36.284+01:00"ou might say that the woman is at fault in t..."ou might say that the woman is at fault in the situation as the fetus wouldn't get in without her being careless. Let's ignore rape for a second and simply ask, since when did carelessness became excuse for an unlawful assault?"<br /><br />You're working on the premise that pregnancy is unlawful which of course it is not. <br /><br />Fallacious argument via false analogy.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-15956882640494616112011-03-16T03:39:35.574+01:002011-03-16T03:39:35.574+01:00What concerns me with the responses to a post tagg...What concerns me with the responses to a post tagged 'philosophy' is the lack of regard to causality.<br /><br />Why do you hire a hunter to your guild? Because of his history of high dps in raid. He is however, apparently, nothing until he begins to literally output.<br /><br />For some there is no causal link between potential and current state when viewing a fetus.<br /><br />This of course flies totally in the face of how we interact with the world.<br /><br />If a fetus is never seen as anything more than it's current state, a handful of cells, then you must disqualify historic performance as defining criteria for hiring dps. Which is clearly absurd and quite terrifying that people adopt this as sound thinking.<br /><br />Current state of fetus is irrelevant when faced with potential of said fetus. Only the naive who do not realize that our interaction with reality revolves around this perception of 'potential' snip this causal link.<br /><br />The rest are aware that the likely outcome of processes robustly evidenced by cause and effect define how we behave.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-56738179629269119222011-03-16T02:35:06.110+01:002011-03-16T02:35:06.110+01:00The fatherhood movement are men who want to take t...The fatherhood movement are men who want to take the custody of their children, and are said to be more successful by the double standards of the world. The father typically have higher income than the mother. However, this also shows to people that if the mother is not capable in the long run, she should let the father take care of the child. Father's fighting for custody are more capable to maintain the necessary resources for their children. It's the double standard taken into account. <br /><br />The claim that a child is invasive is equivalent to say that spousal rape is rape.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-24560075233733527422011-03-15T23:43:02.828+01:002011-03-15T23:43:02.828+01:00Anonymous said:
"This argument is hardly new...Anonymous said:<br /><br />"This argument is hardly new. It's quite similar to an argument put forward by Judith Thompson in 1971.<br /><br />Here's a rebuttal from a pro-life organisation that deals with it quite handily, IMHO. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689" rel="nofollow">http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689</a>"<br /><br />That article makes another good point. Courts routinely compel fathers to provide child support for their children, whether they want to or not. Fathers, apparently, have a moral obligation to their own children... but not mothers? Even if the pregnancy represents no threat whatsoever to the mother's health, which is true for the vast, vast majority of cases?<br /><br />Seems blatantly sexist to me yet I doubt you'll find one in a thousand pro-abortionists who would support allowing fathers to refuse to provide child support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-2166970648069708732011-03-15T21:49:14.704+01:002011-03-15T21:49:14.704+01:00It is indeed a very strange argument to claim that...It is indeed a very strange argument to claim that a woman's young child is an unlawful intruder that can be killed at will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-71980566338873318002011-03-15T20:26:07.197+01:002011-03-15T20:26:07.197+01:00I don't think you honestly think that this arg...I don't think you honestly think that this argument would be successful in convincing people, and I expect (similar to the women in video games argument) that you will soon reveal your real reason for posting it. Still, the argument is a deeply flawed.<br /><br />From a purely objective standpoint, there is no similarity between two different adult humans, let alone an adult human and a fetus. Two different adult humans are composed of different matter and occupy different locations (as well as, technically, different times). There is nothing the same about them at all.<br /><br />Similarity of any kind between any medium sized objects at all is a mental construction, and any similarity that more than one person can agree upon is a social construction. So the idea that we can logically say that a fetus is just as much a human as an adult is ridiculous, it depends entirely on your socially constructed idea of what a human is. There is no absolute answer.<br /><br />So first you bypass the central contentious argument that separates the two sides by declaring one side right - ignoring the fact that the definition of humans and what rights humans have is a social question. By now you have completely lost nearly everyone who would be interested in the argument at all. You the move on to ignore a fact that nearly everyone would agree on - that children and certainly infants should be treated differently than adults when it comes to punishment for actions.<br /><br />For your argument to work at all we have to agree that there are circumstances that justify killing humans, so the absolute question of whether a fetus is a human is pretty much a sideshow. Since we largely do agree on that point, why turn to a bad analogy that next to no one would buy into to make your point?Sthennohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05429676469805661834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-23350351644443491602011-03-15T20:11:44.007+01:002011-03-15T20:11:44.007+01:00If that "another person" is her son, she...<i>If that "another person" is her son, she surely is required to house/feed/care for him until he is grown-up.</i><br /><br />Actually, no. The only time you are required to care for a child is if you hold custody of said child. If you hold custody and don't take them to school (once school-aged), then you can be charged with educational neglect. Same with medical neglect, abuse/neglect for not feeding them, etc.<br /><br />However, at essentially any time whatsoever you can go down to the local court house and forfeit custody of your child. At that point, the child becomes a ward of the state, gets sent to foster care while social workers attempt to find an adoptive family. Once you cede custody, you are no longer responsible for the child's well-being, son/daughter or no.Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-42151811859767621032011-03-15T20:00:26.000+01:002011-03-15T20:00:26.000+01:00@Chewy: actively kill them? No.
Letting nature goe...@Chewy: actively kill them? No.<br />Letting nature goes its way? Yes.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-64700497868302309512011-03-15T20:00:15.255+01:002011-03-15T20:00:15.255+01:00@Braille, the logical consequences you mention are...@Braille, the logical consequences you mention are surely pretty strong and I agree that I would not like to have them in place, but still they are not disproving the validity of the argument.<br /><br />Consequences can be hard but this doesn't make them invalid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-76215320401315786482011-03-15T19:47:56.911+01:002011-03-15T19:47:56.911+01:00@Braille
"By that logic, we should also be a...@Braille<br /><br /><i>"By that logic, we should also be alright with these actions:....</i><br /><br />I suspect Gevlon probably would be ok with the actions you listed, but not wishing to speak for him I will request his response. Gevlon ?chewynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-69349716980331500062011-03-15T17:18:58.043+01:002011-03-15T17:18:58.043+01:00The union of religious conservatives and pro-busin...The union of religious conservatives and pro-business capitalists in America is a fairly recent development brought about by their shared opposition to the left, though for different reasons. Ronald Reagan gets much credit here.<br /><br />Abortion is religious baggage which one faction brings with them to the coalition. The issue preventing the spread of pro-business ideas is the continued association of these two on the "right" of the political spectrum.<br /><br />The better argument is to take a pro-business approach to abortion: legalize it, open it to market forces and let supply and demand set availability. This would alienate the pro-life activists, allowing everybody, men and women, to assess the capitalist movement without having to consider tangents like abortion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-27624432704899596232011-03-15T17:05:49.900+01:002011-03-15T17:05:49.900+01:00Anonymous wrote:
"This argument is hardly new...Anonymous wrote:<br />"This argument is hardly new. It's quite similar to an argument put forward by Judith Thompson in 1971.<br /><br />Here's a rebuttal from a pro-life organisation that deals with it quite handily, IMHO.<br /><br />http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689"<br /><br />That's a very well written explanation as to why Gevlon's argument doesn't work.<br /><br />Ultimately, if the fetus is a thief, any dependent person (person who can't independently support themselves) is equally a thief who can potentially be "aborted" for the benefit of the person who's losing resources in the thief's favor.<br /><br />By that logic, we should also be alright with these actions:<br />- Excuse any parent who kills their children if those children haven't left the home to support themselves.<br />- Pull the plug on all coma patients.<br />- End the life of any disabled persons who can't support themselves.<br />- End the life of all Welfare-like leeches on society.<br />- End the life of all old people who can no longer support themselves.<br /><br />This is the logical conclusion to your argument that I came up with while reading your original post. There are quite a few more valid points in the linked article that also show that your argument is invalid.Braillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17308195595532614608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-71035150400406296792011-03-15T17:04:33.221+01:002011-03-15T17:04:33.221+01:00I keep being tempted to do the same thing as I did...I keep being tempted to do the same thing as I did on a forum years ago, when I shot down arguments that were obviously idiotic. The idiot pro-lifers called me anti-life, the idiot pro-choicers called me anti-choice. All the idiots assumed that because I disagreed with them, I must be agreeing with the other idiots. One poster finally got around to *asking* me whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, several pages later.<br /><br /><br />"no one could argue with a straight face that a fetus is doing "harm" to a female body - even an unwanted one. I'm sorry but only a man would come up with such bullshit argument :) Moreover, for most women, pregnancy can be quite good for overall health (hormone levels etc)." They do argue with a straight face, and there is no reason to be sexist about it. Pregnancy can also be quite bad for overall health. Hormonal changes and other things associated with pregnancy (both internal and external) can cause a reduced cancer risk, an increased cancer risk, increased health care, less health care, increased access to food and nutrients, decreased amounts of food and nutrients, higher social status and cultral approval, lower social status and shaming, etc etc. You shouldn't ignore the other half.<br /><br />"still a serious health risk, which also changes a woman's body for good" - Same with regularly eating animal products, trans fats, low-fiber diets, or drugs like caffeine; not sleeping on a schedule; getting sunburned; getting too much blue light at night; etc etc (for women, but also men, girls, boys, and humans who don't fit one of the two commonly identified genders).<br /><br />"check out maternity death rates, pregancy complications, recovery time, and high medical costs (certainly in the US)." Check out abortion death rates, abortion complications, recovery times, and high medical costs.<br /><br />"abortion topic is only used to attract dumb religious voters." So true. What does the economy, guns, abortion, etc have in common? Voter preference. There's no logical connection. Or as Michael Young said, "our two party system creates an odd mishmash of seemingly opposing ideals joining together because (on the whole) they oppose the other side."<br /><br />"An interesting argument, but I disagree with the implied argument Gevlon is making that all right-wingers and all right-wing arguments are rational." He agrees with some of their conclusions. He doesn't think they are necessarily reaching that conclusion with reason, however. His argument doesn't have anything to do with souls; in fact he was trying to manipulate their religious beliefs to get these irrational people to agree with him.<br /><br />"forced to give birth and feed/care/support the child for some decades." What happened to adoption or other forms of abandonment? (Same with the violinist webpage; not everyone assumes that similar genetic material equals an emotional bond or lifelong duty.)<br /><br /><br />Ah, so many misguided people with so many silly statements. Can't take the time to refute them all.WLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-58387733663377629522011-03-15T17:03:45.297+01:002011-03-15T17:03:45.297+01:00There are a lot of Americans who will never, EVER ...There are a lot of Americans who will never, EVER vote for any politician who is not pro-life because of their strong belief that anybody who supports abortion being legal will go to hell when they die. They are absolutely positive of this.<br />If a politician changes his stance on abortion and cites your arguments, he/she will gain some votes but will lose far more.<br />My personal view on abortion is that it should be legal but that a pregnant woman who wants an abortion must first be presented with information on her options to have the baby and give it up for adoption. There are a lot of couples who cannot have children and will pay a lot of money to adopt a child. However, religious people tend to believe in absolutes, not compromise.Yagglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177750815584983551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-73367024990249471522011-03-15T16:26:05.050+01:002011-03-15T16:26:05.050+01:00There is a fundamental flaw in both your argument ...There is a fundamental flaw in both your argument and parallel illustrations. <br /><br />That pregnancy is a sort of assault seems obvious- It makes a woman fat, causes discomfort, can damage certain bodily systems, etc.<br /><br />However, to look who to "punish" for a crime reason demands that you look to whose choices directly cause the act. It certainly is not the un-born child's choice. It was the mother and father's choice to have intercourse without sufficient contraception. <br /><br />To address your two counter examples.<br />1) A hungry man who steals to eat has made many many choices that place him in the position he's in. You of all people are an advocate for "poor hungry people are poor and hungry because they made bad decisions and are M&S" so that shouldn't be too hard to see--- I don't think I'm even as extreme about it as you are, but no matter.<br />2) Women's slight carelessness is incommensurate with the consequences of a 9 month assault on their body. True... so? If I go out to the pub, have 6 or 7 beers, hop in my car, and crash into a cafe killing 4 people, my slight carelessness of choosing to drive is incommensurate with the consequence of killing 4 people... yet I am certainly guilty of manslaughter. <br /><br />So yes, pregnancy is an "assault." Yes, the consequences are incommensurate with the small choice in the heat of passion to forgo contraception. But the responsible party is the one who made a choice knowing full well one of the possible consequences of their actions--- and this certainly wasn't the baby.fauxgt4https://www.blogger.com/profile/12486319235159043128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-57464602239709331172011-03-15T15:55:13.284+01:002011-03-15T15:55:13.284+01:00Gevlon said: "Abortion is one of (if not the ...<b>Gevlon said: "Abortion is one of (if not the biggest) issue that blocks the spreading of pro-business ideas."</b><br /><br />Actually what stops the spread of pro-business ideas isn't abortion but how unfairly some laws favor large corporations at the expense of local business, or how the tax code allows large companies to escape their full tax liabilities while the middle class struggles with the tax code. I'm a free market capitalist at heart but I also realize there has to be some oversight of the market to prevent monopolies and robber-barons from ruining our economy.Campitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05694617395206756224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-5058879539659453832011-03-15T15:35:10.271+01:002011-03-15T15:35:10.271+01:00The point of pro-Choicers is not that every woman ...<i>The point of pro-Choicers is not that every woman could go In any clinic by themselves and simply get an abortion, the pointi s that they should have the right to be able to have one at all.</i><br /><br />Not anymore. Now the point is exactly the no-questions abortion on demand. That is why you have charnel houses like the Gosnell case, where you have untrained people in unsanitary conditions conducting abortions, because it is thought that any sort of government interference is interfering with the right to abortion. (If only we treated the actual enumerated rights like this!)<br /><br />Also, voting is effected by abortion. The idea is that children are most likely to eventually vote the way their parents did. Conservative pro-life people have more kids, because pro-choice liberals abort a high percentage of theirs. It's called the "Roe Effect" and now that it's about 35 years since the decision, we are starting to see the effects in American politics.Phelpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06270536870200063563noreply@blogger.com