Hey chimbleysweep!

[mankie]

After our exchange regarding abortion yesterday something has been on my mind so I need to ask you a question.
 
 On the topic regarding the serial sniper you came out strongly against the death penalty, then on another thread strongly in favor of abortion.
 
 How is it you're dead against killing murderers but in favor of killing babies....kill em when they're young, but not old is it?
 
 I'm not having a go, it's just something I find very inconsistent so wondered what your rationale was.
 
 Hope you get to bike this weekend, weather looks promising. Do a big hill for me because I need the training, thanks!  

[grotty]

Obviously I'm not chimbleysweep, but I can anticipate the answer you're going to get.
 
 There's only one logical stance that would allow you to believe in 2 superficially contradictory point-of-views:
 
 It's the basis of all arguments for/against abortion - when does the fetus really become a life?
 
 This could get ugly...

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

abortion is one of those things that should never be debated on bulletin boards...  the arguments are predictable and boring.  The odds of someone actually expressing an original thought on the matter are very, very low.
 
 And besides...
 
   <img src="http://www.toadsoup.com/store/argue.jpg" alt=" - " />

[Bags]

Grotty is correct.  They're not comparable because a fetus is not a life.  It's not like killing a neighbor who causes a nuisance and degrades your quality of life (a comparison brought up to me, which enlightened me greatly because it shows the black and white difference -- a life or not; I understand *where* pro-lifers come from, but I absolutely do not agree with their premise).
 
 HOWEVER, interestingly, it is conservative Christian pro-death penalty right-to-lifers whom I find inconsistent.  They obviously believe a fetus is a life, which would make it comparable to someone on death row, but it's okay to kill that person on death row.

[Bags]

Dr. Doom is right....Mankie know's I'll get sucked in, though.  My susceptibility!    
 
 Actually, I was trying to show how far apart the 'sides' of the debate are -- there's no gray area at all, so there's just no arguing it, certainly not on a bulletin board.

[mankie]

Originally posted by Bags:
  Dr. Doom is right....Mankie know's I'll get sucked in, though.  My susceptibility!        
 
 Actually, I was trying to show how far apart the 'sides' of the debate are -- there's no gray area at all, so there's just no arguing it, certainly not on a bulletin board.

Actually, I wasn't fishing on this one...I just couldn't understand how someone could have such differing opinions on what I feel is a similar subject, it's just the age difference imo.
 
 Legally a fetus is not a human being, but in reality it is and I wasn't asking a legal question.
 
 I don't want this to turn into an online argument...and the discussion yesterday wasn't an argument either, nobody started mud-slinging from what I remember.
 
 I am NOT pro-life as I said yesterday....I am pro-life personally, but feel strongly that just because I am, it doesn't mean everyone else has to be, so in that regard I'm pro-choice. I do feel VERY strongly that the father should be involved with the decision regarding abortion because it's his child too....what if it's a one-night stand and he doesn't want the child but she does....he then has a life he's responsible for  even though he didn't want it...but if he does want the child and she doesn't he also has no say in that, so someone basically kills his child???
 
 Some may say I'm also being inconsistent, being against abortion but for the death penalty...my rationale is that a baby has done nothing wrong to be put to death, whereas the murderer has, and should be given the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.
 
 Okay, that's it.

Science is the new religion.  Therefore science is the answer to abortion.  In the future all births will be IVF.  Problem solved in a brave new world.

[Bags]

Originally posted by mankie:
  ...I just couldn't understand how someone could have such differing opinions on what I feel is a similar subject, it's just the age difference imo.
 
 Legally a fetus is not a human being, but in reality it is and I wasn't asking a legal question.
 

Legally and in reality, a fetus is not a human being.   I wasn't answering a legal question.  This is why there's no gray area, you believe it is or it isn't, and that determines what an abortion is doing (based on your personal premise).
 
 I disagree that your opinion on this has anything to do with age.  My stepmother and her friends are staunchly pro-choice (in that camp that a fetus is not a human being, legally or 'in reality') and anti-death penalty.  And they're even older than you, Mank!    :p  
 
 You're right, we didn't sling mud over this -- we must be getting awfully 'forum savvy'!  it's almost like, like....a community!

[ggw]

Originally posted by Bags:
 Legally and in reality, a fetus is not a human being.   I wasn't answering a legal question.  This is why there's no gray area, you believe it is or it isn't, and that determines what an abortion is doing (based on your personal premise).

Huh?
 
 If I understand this correctly, "reality" is simply defined as what one "believes" to be true.  Is that right?  If so, then it's all gray area.

[Bags]

ggw, I should have said "I believe legally and in reality, a fetus is not a human being" -- I was just setting Mankie straight that I wasnt' only ansering his 'legal' question.  I was differentiating based on Mankie's division of legal rights from what he believes to be true (legally a fetus has no right, but he believes it's a human being).  Just noted that I wasn't answering his legal question, as he intimated.
 
 The lack of a grey area is precisely there -- in a person's perspective -- it's a life or it's not as a fetus.  That's where the arguments just end, I've found, the rest is hyperbole.  You're right, though -- there are different "realities."

[jkeisenh]

Wow, a thread in my name.  I feel so honored.  Plus, now everyone knows I'm internet-free on weekends.
 
 Let's see here...  I agree with the aforemade arguments.  A fetus isn't a living human being.  
 
 Besides, let's not get into the roll call of people who were pro-death penalty and anti-choice...
 
 Back to bike talk!
 
 Anyone see that new Nike commercial, where Lance Armstrong is a boxer?  I don't get it.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

So this set me to wondering...
 
 If a fetus is not a human being, exactly what is it?

[ggw]

Originally posted by Bags:
 The lack of a grey area is precisely there -- in a person's perspective -- it's a life or it's not as a fetus.  That's where the arguments just end, I've found, the rest is hyperbole.  You're right, though -- there are different "realities."

Relativism is soooooo last century.

[Celeste]

Originally posted by bunnyballs:
  So this set me to wondering...
 
 If a fetus is not a human being, exactly what is it?

I think it IS a human being, and yet I am still pro-choice, in terms of public policy. People need to face the reality of what they're acutally doing when they get an abortion.

[jkeisenh]

Originally posted by Celestial Balls:
  I think it IS a human being

See, this is the problem with both the abortion debate and with the idea that you can legislate on the issue.
 
 What is a human?
 Something with a heartbeat?  Then you should support first trimester abortion.
 Something that can live on its own?  Then you should support abortion in all trimesters.
 Something with a defined head? Then you should support first trimester abortion.
 A fertilized egg?  Then you should move to some other country because that's just to backwords for me to think about.
 A stem cell?  Now that's insane.
 
 And what are the mother's rights, whether or not you think her fetus is  a 'human being?'
 
 And if you admit that it's a religious conviction that you're anti-choice, why is it ok to legislate that on others?
 
 Anyway.
 Back to bike talk.
 
 I want a fixie so bad.  But I'm not very good at skid stopping.