An Abortion Debate (In Case You Aren't Sick Of Them Already)

I am not really sure how important it is, but my name is Thomas Ranieri. Just thought I'd clear that up for all you non-existent readers.

In fairness to the morons on the other side, I gave them the (completely irrelevant) last word. The reason I am proud of myself is because I managed to make an argument refuting the absurd, which, as anyone who argue frequently understands, is incredibly difficult.

I feel it important to point out that Jarrett is smug and hate-filled, but, more importantly, completely unable to grasp my argument, instead relying on what he thinks I would say, as opposed to trying to understand exactly what and why I am saying it. Not surprising, I know, when you consider that liberals are fantastic at personal invective and projection.

Without further ado:

An Abortion Debate (Or, How Pro-death People are Steadfastly Convinced of the Most Twisted and Absurd Ideas):

Elizabeth M. Whalen: Chris, I can not tell you enough how sorry I am for you if what you claim is true, but no matter how one conceives, that embryo is still a human life, and it is wrong to kill it. i know, i know, it would be traumatic to "carry your raper’s seed" for nine months, and there is nothing you can do about that, but I would assume that being cut to pieces, and being sucked out of your mothers womb is a pretty traumatic thing for the poor baby. Now, which do you think is more unfair, and traumatic- Being killed, or having to GIVE LIFE to another human.

"Conception is forcing life on an embryo. Your move." Wow! Somebody is desperate for a witty argument! That is BS Laura, and I think you know it. And conception is not forcing life on an embryo, it is creating the embryo.

Then Dave goes "Newsflash genius---kids get decisions forced on them everyday, all day for the first two decades of their life---generally." yes, kids do get decisions forced on them every day, but when people make decisions to KILL the kid, and force that decision on them, they are punished, because it is a crime to take another persons life. Period. No Exceptions. You think we should change that?

Laura Hobbes LeGault: Elizabeth - if conception is not forcing life on an embryo but instead creating the embryo, then abortion is not forcing death on the embryo but instead destroying it. What you're playing here is the semantics game.

Thomas Ranieri (me): Laura, Elizabeth may be playing semantics, but you are making a completely irrelevant argument. You see, once the child is conceived, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not it wanted to be conceived. It is, as the French say, a fait accompli. So, you objection may be true, but isn't germane to the issue.

That being said, your argument is completely idiotic. First of all, the species needs to continue to exist. Second of all, there is nothing ethically wrong in any reasonable persons mind with making a child. Third, it isn't as though you can outlaw it. Fourth, it is agreed upon that being is preferable to non-being, so we aren't "forcing" life on anything, we are granting life when we conceive. Believe it or not, personal preference usually very little to do with what is right.

Something else just occurred to me, it's a bit heady, but try and puzzle it out. An embryo, or more precisely an egg, is not an animate or conscious thing before being fertilized. Hence, not only can it not make a decision, but the concept of free will, coercion, and the problems that accompany those things cannot even be applied. For instance, do you ask a rock if it is ok you mine it, or throw it? No, because those concepts and rocks are not compatible. Claro? As the ability to make a decision is contingent on life and consciousness, then life itself is obviously the first, or higher, principle. If you grant this, which you must, because it is inescapable, then you must also grant that the lower principle cannot deny that which gives it existence. Therefore, it is impossible to force life on anything.

Cassandra Marshall: Thomas, I know that you are replying to Laura and I will risk responding rudely if I go too far, however, I really think that the "species" is in no dire straights in terms of continuing to exist. Have you been to Disneyland lately?

Also it really galls me when a male representative of said species likes to discuss the universal notion of how "personal preference" might have little to with what is right for all women in all situations.

Oh, and by whose standards and whose agreement are we deciding that being is better than non-being. I think a non-being in Darfur would be better of than a being if they were in danger of being brutally killed/raped/whatever.

Laura Hobbes LeGault: Thomas, by extension, after abortion, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not the embryo wanted to be destroyed or not. After the fact - be that conception or abortion - what it "wanted" doesn't matter at all.

1) The species has continued to exist quite well over the past 10,000 years or so, and for much of that span, abortion has been practiced.

2) The making of children is not the ethical difficulty - it is the forcible use of another person's body by that embryo that raises the ethical questions.

3) I'm not trying to outlaw conception - though the "abstinence unless you're married" camp is making a valiant attempt at it.

4) Your premise contradicts your conclusion - it is "agreed upon" that being is preferable to non-being but personal preference has nothing to do with it? Then what is it, exactly, that is agreeing that being is preferable to non-being? That sounds like a bunch of people's personal preferences to me.

Tim DeJong: "I think a non-being in Darfur would be better of [sic] than a being if they were in danger of being brutally killed/raped/whatever."I don't even want to get into how poor and self-defeating this attempt at logic is. Just think about it. How, for example, does one rape a non-being?...

Laura Hobbes LeGault: "How, for example, does one rape a non-being?"Necrophilia: Dead girls can't say no.But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're not so dense as to think that was the point Cassandra was attempting to make, which is instead non-being and peace vs. being and rape/torture.

Jarrett DeAngelis: I promise you, God is NOT a Republican. (Author’s Note: My profile picture was modified fascist propaganda that said “God is a Republican.” I think it was from Old American Century. I just love perverting their purpose. –T.R.)

Elizabeth M. Whalen: Oh wow Jarrett that is just fantastic to know. Now i am going to quote a friend of mine and say: "It is my opinion that when one analyzes the world around them, they will find that everything is made of cheese curd. Which is my way of saying: That's nice, where's your proof?" (Author’s note: Believe it or not, that is actually something that I said on another group’s site. - T.R.)

Thomas Ranieri: Since you haven't responded to my second post, I will just assume that you concede the point, namely that you cannot force life on anything. This makes all further discussion irrelevant, but, to humor you, I will do it anyway.

Just because the species has continued to exist doesn't mean that it will continue to exist. There is no evidence to support that claim but momentum, and the demographic evidence that the world is in decline is startling. America has a 2.13% birth rate, which means that the population we have now will be the one that we will have fifty years. The startling part is that America has the best birth rate among all the developed nations of the world. The following nations have birth rates that are below replacement rate, which means that there population is diminishing: Russia 1.1%, Spain 1.1%, China 1.1%, France 1.3%, Italy 1.2%, Germany, 1.2%, United Kingdom 1.8%. (Historical Note: No country whose birth rate has hit 1.1% has ever recovered.)

The country with the highest abortion rate is Russia, with each woman on average having seven abortions in her lifetime. While we aren't in imminent danger of species death, if we continue frittering away our children so we can lead selfish lives, then it will inevitably come. That's the thing with actions: they have consequences.

"2) The making of children is not the ethical difficulty - it is the forcible use of another person's body by that embryo that raises the ethical questions." This is truly the height of idiotic, selfish thinking. With the exception of rape, pregnancy is by its very definition not coercive in any sense of the word. First of all, the nature of sex is that it is both unitive and procreative. This means that any act of sex has the potential of creating life. Therefore, it is implicit in the act itself that you are inviting life by engaging in sex. When you make that invitation, you are responsible for its consequences, because of the gravity importance, and sacredness of the life you invited in.

Furthermore, once a life has taken its place inside your body (which, by the way, is the whole purpose of the female design), you are obliged to protect it because it is life. The distinction between this point and the previous is subtle, but quite present. Just because it is inconvenient does not make it ok to kill it.

"3) I'm not trying to outlaw conception - though the "abstinence unless you're married" camp is making a valiant attempt at it." This is a completely factious argument. The "abstinence until your married" camp is trying to the exact opposite of what propose: to put sex back in its proper sphere. Since, as we have previously established, life is an inherent part of the procreative act, there must be stable and loving families to care for the life they created through their own actions.

To have sex is to make a promise of commitment, both emotionally and physiologically. Since marriage is supposed to be a forever thing, making that commitment with your body only belongs in a sphere where it can be true. To not do this causes irrepairable harm to both the man and the women, and makes sex essentially meaningless. The abstinence camp is also unerringly pro-life. Speaking for myself, I am married, have a child and part of that "camp", I can say that we love kids, and all that implies.

Because of the nature of conception, namely that it isn't a decision you can take back, or, in other words, that once the decision to engage in sexual behavior has been made, and conception occurs, it cannot be changed, pregnancy must always either be coercive or invitational, there is no middle ground. By this I am referring to the idea that a woman can change her mind after the fact, and the original invitation to abide in the womb is taken away, and abortion occurs. It is not the child's fault that his or her mom is capricious, nor can a child be faulted for answering the inevitable call of nature in being conceived, nor in accepting his mother's invitation into the womb. Hence, if you truly believe that pregnancy can be coercive, it therefore must always be coercive, and you should be advocating for the outlaw of pregnancy.

"Thomas, by extension, after abortion, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not the embryo wanted to be destroyed or not. After the fact - be that conception or abortion - what it "wanted" doesn't matter at all." Sorry, I should have dealt with this first, but I got distracted by your overwhelming idiocy. This is a very simple issue to deal with, the difference is clear; on the one hand, you bestow life on something which did not have it, which also did not have a will or consciousness. On the other hand, you are taking it away from another human. We have a word for the second case, it is cold blooded murder.

(Murder: To kill brutally or inhumanly; to put an end to; destroy)

Cassandra, personal preference has nothing to do with what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing, regardless of sex. I claim to know what is right because of my understanding of transcendent and absolute principles. If men were systematically killing their children, and the government allowed it, then I would be on their web site arguing against them. This has nothing to do with your supposed womanhood (and I supposed because I am not sure that any true woman would be a proponent for killing her own children), and everything to do with what is right and wrong.

Do you see mass suicides in Darfur? No? Well then, I would say that those people would rather live. This highlights another issue about abortion, namely that the issue whether or not a person should live isn't, or at least it shouldn't, be up to you at all. Abortion essentially makes you a tyrant over one person who you can kill at your whim. Ultimately the only person who should be able to decide whether they want to live is the person themselves. You have no right to decide that death is better than life for another human being.

Jarrett, you're right. The Republicans are too liberal for God.

Laura Hobbes LeGault: Tom, you're new here, so I'm not going to waste much more time explaining things you can read in the threads. Abortion is not murder, China's birth rate is governmentally enforced, it's quite selfish to assume that quantity of life supersedes quality of life, and once again, abortion is not murder. I'm not going to explain it again; we've been over it at least 10 times in the discussions.

Jarett DeAngelis: Hi, Tom.

Why does China enforce the birth rate it has?

"Speaking for myself, I am married, have a child and part of that "camp", I can say that we love kids, and all that implies."

Congratulations. I am not part of that camp at all, love kids, and look forward to being the best father I can should someone consent to marrying me one day. Whoop-tee-do. Any other flags you want to pointlessly wave?

Thomas Ranieri: China's birth rate is critically below replacement rate. Why that is the case isn't really important.

Quality of life isn't improved by abortion; please avail yourself of the studies showing increased depression, suicidal tendencies, lowered ability to conceive and the like in women who have had abortions. Be that as it may, the question is whether or not abortion is wrong in itself.

You know, denying that abortion is murder does not change the fact that it is. I'll read your posts, but they won't convince me because I am right, and you are wrong. I will happily explain this to you in the future.

As you have completely ignored the Herculean effort that I put into all my previous posts, and have not proffered an objection other than "abortion is not murder", I consider you to have conceded on each of them. I think we can safely put to bed the objection that life is forced on an embryo, and that the child is forced on the mother. All that remains, then, is proving that abortion is murder. It shouldn't be too difficult. Yeah, Jarrett, well done seizing on the only portion of my posts that was anecdotal. It makes it much easier to ignore everything else if you can just harp on one thing, isn't it? I merely mentioned that because it helps refute her completely moronic invective that abstinence before marriage people are trying to outlaw conception.

Jarrett DeAngelis: Why does China enforce a negative replacement rate? The answer is that *we do not need a net increase in the number of humans in the world right now*. We in fact need FEWER. The planet is already being stretched beyond its carrying capacity. The human race is not and will likely never be in danger of extinction. Drop that point and move on.

Oh, look! I found SOMETHING ELSE you said that was anecdotal! "To have sex is to make a promise of commitment, both emotionally and physiologically. Since marriage is supposed to be a forever thing, making that commitment with your body only belongs in a sphere where it can be true. To not do this causes irreparable harm to both the man and the women, and makes sex essentially meaningless."

I have had casual sex several times in the past. It got boring fast. I am not "irreparably harmed." Your categorical, unqualified statement is disproved. What else do you have in your "Herculean effort?"