Abortion and Gay Marriage

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Semantics itself makes for a very weak argument, friend.

It's the anti-abortionists playing semantic games, begging the question by referring to fetuses as "babies." The question is obviously whether they have the status of humans, i.e. if they count as "babies."

Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

Not all fetuses turn into babies.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

Not all fetuses turn into babies.

Then what do they become?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

Not all fetuses turn into babies.

Then what do they become?

Ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

Not all fetuses turn into babies.

Then what do they become?

Ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage.

Then you're advocating that women considering abortion just wait and see what happens?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

Not all fetuses turn into babies.

Then what do they become?

Ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage.

Then you're advocating that women considering abortion just wait and see what happens?

Um, what? No. I was refuting your statement that fetuses turn into babies and nothing else. Some fetuses turn into babies. Some don't.

[Anonymous]

I am going to start calling my preschooler a college graduate.

[Anonymous]

I always sit under acorns for the shade, don't you?

[Anonymous]

12:07 made me snort - I actually snickered at 12:20. Well done.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fetuses turn into babies, and nothing else. So it would seem that pro-abortionists, using the term fetus to describe what is on a singular path to becoming a baby, are at fault of 'semantic games'.

Not all fetuses turn into babies.

Then what do they become?

Ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage.

Then you're advocating that women considering abortion just wait and see what happens?

Um, what? No. I was refuting your statement that fetuses turn into babies and nothing else. Some fetuses turn into babies. Some don't.

Exactly! You wouldn't advocate that a pregnant woman considering abortion just 'wait and see' because unless the fetus' life is ended, whether naturally or medically, she will end up with a baby.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you engaged me in this line of reasoning since you seem to agree with PP that it's just a 'semantic game.' In doing so you either failed to understand or willfully ignored the point of my first post, which is that half of the country believes that fetuses/babies need to be protected and that during all of the movements I mentioned (slavery, civil rights of all kinds, etc.),half of the country wanted to end what they saw as an injustice while the other side had all kinds of excuses to keep things as they were. The argument of the latter was usually based in the notion that a whole class of people were sub-human (blacks!, women, gays) and didn't deserve a voice in the matter.

So, in agreement with the PP that likened abortion to slavery, I think people who put themselves in the 'pro-abortion' camp, whether vocally or tacitly, will eventually be seen as having the same stance as the racist, misogynistic, homophobic folks who thought that all the respective groups of people were second rate citizens of their time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly! You wouldn't advocate that a pregnant woman considering abortion just 'wait and see' because unless the fetus' life is ended, whether naturally or medically, she will end up with a baby.

I am quite sure that you are not in a position to state what I would or wouldn't say in a specific circumstance. You made a statement. I refuted that statement. Nothing less, nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I'm not sure why you engaged me in this line of reasoning since you seem to agree with PP that it's just a 'semantic game.'

I engaged you to correct a factually wrong statement.

Anonymous wrote:In doing so you either failed to understand or willfully ignored the point of my first post, which is that half of the country believes that fetuses/babies need to be protected and that during all of the movements I mentioned (slavery, civil rights of all kinds, etc.),half of the country wanted to end what they saw as an injustice while the other side had all kinds of excuses to keep things as they were. The argument of the latter was usually based in the notion that a whole class of people were sub-human (blacks!, women, gays) and didn't deserve a voice in the matter.

I do not think that half of the people in the US believe abortion should be illegal. You are correct that in many, many, cases, majorities have taken positions that were later generally considered to have been wrong.

Anonymous wrote:So, in agreement with the PP that likened abortion to slavery, I think people who put themselves in the 'pro-abortion' camp, whether vocally or tacitly, will eventually be seen as having the same stance as the racist, misogynistic, homophobic folks who thought that all the respective groups of people were second rate citizens of their time.

You could quite possibly be correct. But, let me turn things around a bit. You repeatedly stated that fetuses become babies. In fact, you said they don't become anything but babies. For a fetus to become a baby, it obviously cannot yet be a baby. So, even you acknowledge that a fetus is not a baby. What is really being discussed is whether fetuses should be protected, not whether babies should be protected. For many, the issue of protecting fetuses is tightly linked to the question of when life begins. For those who do not approach that question from a religious perspective, there is not a clear answer. Hence, reasonable people can disagree. Ultimately, that question is likely to be settle more by medical advances than anything else.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly! You wouldn't advocate that a pregnant woman considering abortion just 'wait and see' because unless the fetus' life is ended, whether naturally or medically, she will end up with a baby.

I am quite sure that you are not in a position to state what I would or wouldn't say in a specific circumstance. You made a statement. I refuted that statement. Nothing less, nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I'm not sure why you engaged me in this line of reasoning since you seem to agree with PP that it's just a 'semantic game.'

I engaged you to correct a factually wrong statement.

Anonymous wrote:In doing so you either failed to understand or willfully ignored the point of my first post, which is that half of the country believes that fetuses/babies need to be protected and that during all of the movements I mentioned (slavery, civil rights of all kinds, etc.),half of the country wanted to end what they saw as an injustice while the other side had all kinds of excuses to keep things as they were. The argument of the latter was usually based in the notion that a whole class of people were sub-human (blacks!, women, gays) and didn't deserve a voice in the matter.

I do not think that half of the people in the US believe abortion should be illegal. You are correct that in many, many, cases, majorities have taken positions that were later generally considered to have been wrong.

Anonymous wrote:So, in agreement with the PP that likened abortion to slavery, I think people who put themselves in the 'pro-abortion' camp, whether vocally or tacitly, will eventually be seen as having the same stance as the racist, misogynistic, homophobic folks who thought that all the respective groups of people were second rate citizens of their time.

You could quite possibly be correct. But, let me turn things around a bit. You repeatedly stated that fetuses become babies. In fact, you said they don't become anything but babies. For a fetus to become a baby, it obviously cannot yet be a baby. So, even you acknowledge that a fetus is not a baby. What is really being discussed is whether fetuses should be protected, not whether babies should be protected. For many, the issue of protecting fetuses is tightly linked to the question of when life begins. For those who do not approach that question from a religious perspective, there is not a clear answer. Hence, reasonable people can disagree. Ultimately, that question is likely to be settle more by medical advances than anything else.

As vehemently as I disagree with you, thanks for the dialogue. I'll post again in 50 years and we can reevaluate.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:...I engaged you to correct a factually wrong statement....

As vehemently as I disagree with you, thanks for the dialogue. I'll post again in 50 years and we can reevaluate.

You need to read more carefully. No one here has challenged your prediction about where things will be, least of all Jeff. I assume that, like me, they were disinclined to speculate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly! You wouldn't advocate that a pregnant woman considering abortion just 'wait and see' because unless the fetus' life is ended, whether naturally or medically, she will end up with a baby.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you engaged me in this line of reasoning since you seem to agree with PP that it's just a 'semantic game.' In doing so you either failed to understand or willfully ignored the point of my first post, which is that half of the country believes that fetuses/babies need to be protected and that during all of the movements I mentioned (slavery, civil rights of all kinds, etc.),half of the country wanted to end what they saw as an injustice while the other side had all kinds of excuses to keep things as they were. The argument of the latter was usually based in the notion that a whole class of people were sub-human (blacks!, women, gays) and didn't deserve a voice in the matter.

So, in agreement with the PP that likened abortion to slavery, I think people who put themselves in the 'pro-abortion' camp, whether vocally or tacitly, will eventually be seen as having the same stance as the racist, misogynistic, homophobic folks who thought that all the respective groups of people were second rate citizens of their time.

I would not like to attend pro-abortion camp. I don't think I'd like the arts and crafts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I already know the answer to this- but is there a single republican candidate who I can live with on these issues? I can't find the abortion policies of Romney or Hunstman on their sites...

To get back to the original question, I think Obama is the closest pro-choice, pro-gay rights republican we have today.