Oh actually, I'm "pro-life," I was just using the term anti-abortion because the phrase pro-life implies everyone who isn't pro-life is pro-death.

1Except I'm not saying that. I'm saying a person should be able to logically and responsibly be able to determine that their own delivery could be catastrophic. A mother knows her capabilities and her own shortcomings, so she should be able to make that decision. This has nothing to do with race, it's about whether a mother believes that she has the ability to raise a child productively of her own accord.

2And see that's where I disagree wholeheartedly, because it implies that people who are successful tried harder or had the right principles. I worked very very hard to get where I am, and it's insulting and downcasting to think that people who have gotten further, worked harder. It also ignores factors like wealth, physiology, psychology, and opportunity, and as you said, luck. I'm sorry badger, but hard work does not solve all problems. Sure many problems would be solved if people worked harder, but this I feel is one of the reasons I am a liberal, because I've paid my way through catholic high school when my mom wanted to send me to public, and I got a full ride to a prestigious college. I pay an exorbitant amount of money on taxes and necessities and fees that I live paycheck to paycheck, while now, I'm concurrently teaching myself php, html, javascript, korean, and japanese, AND attempting to get an advanced degree while working part time after being laid off and writing business proposals for incubator/accelerators. Meanwhile, people like Paul Ryan want no taxes on capital gains? Excuse me for being obscenely rude, but 'fuck that party'. I am the future job creator. Why do I have to work 15 times harder?

Excuse me for that off-topic rant, but I feel your stance on "responsibility" is one of the core reasons for disagreement on this issue.

EDIT: put a 1 and 2 for clarity

1. Yeah, sorry. I just mean in general that the conversation is always so unproductive, but philosophically the conversation about when life becomes a person is profound and very interesting. It just doesn't get to happen often because everyone is trying to make political points, and they are afraid of being forced to accept things intellectually that may undermine their previously staked out political position.

2. That's kind of a blanket statement because certainly once it is viable, the fetus is capable of homeostasis. Even prior to becoming viable, it has a kind of homeostasis within its environment. It just isn't capable of surviving independently yet. But I wouldn't say it is any less an organism than a person in an iron lung ceases to be an organism.

4. I'd say all anti-abortionists would fall under the pro-life umberlla, but not all pro-lifers are anti-abortionists. The dividing line is elective abortions.

Sorry appolose, i meant the op the guy who threatens murder with murder.
My original posts had been in the context of thar, and i feel like it was becoming a bit of a semantical argument. I am pro compromise where each should have rights. No abortion after say 3 months unless in the case that theinjury is likely.

Well, now I'm confused. Do you believe in elective abortions or not? Do you believe in an exception for economic hardship in addition to medical hardship?

I didn't say that hard work solved all problems. In fact, I specifically said that if you work very hard in the wrong direction, you won't get anywhere. I do think that attempts to address poverty with government welfarism have only exacerbated the situation. Some people are born with advantages, and some are born with extreme disadvantages. That's obvious and inevitable. But it seems hopelessly naïve to believe that the government is capable of rightly deciding who has too much and who has too little and enacting "social justice" when it has so much difficulty enforcing regular old justice. That assumes that they even sincerely are motivated by a desire to do the right in the first place when most politicians are themselves just pigs feeding at the trough. We are stuck in a pattern of empowering the government to keep teh won percentz in line, and then when the rich buy the government, we just further empower the government that they've already bought. That is insanity.

And hey, for my part, I'd at least reduce your tax burden.

Nono
Let me clarify.
The default i believe should be full womens rights. Reasoning includes crime black market abortion mental anguish, etc. Its like drugs. Illegal marijuana gives power tothe black market for example. I dont like weed, but i understand the associative reasons pro and con.
At the basic though, its federal, and i wont argue for either. But i believe that at minimum women should have at least three months to decide purely for their own reasons.

But yes, perhaps welfare etc type programs havegone too far, but i owe a lot to social programs. Inner cityyouth programs, library access with internet in early90s, summer jobs provided by government, allowance to be on my parents medical for as long as i was, scholarship programs, extracurricular programs, etc etc.

It's not that I think that no good can come of any government program. They can do some good, of course, but I do think that they are generally not cost effective. More importantly, the overall practice of allowing the government to address anything it identifies as an ill with money taken from the citizenry leads to (as Madison predicted) the end of the concept of a government of enumerated powers and (as predicted by de Tocqueville) the eventual death of the republic when Congress figures out it can bribe the public with the public's own money.

Just like with abortion, these discussions tend to run off the rails very quickly into a shoutfest pitting stereotypical welfare queens against stereotypical Nazi Objectivist social Darwinists. That kind of stuff generates a lot more heat than light, and it doesn't really do anything to further a discussion of the pros and cons of different ways the government can address poverty (or even if it should). But I'm far from convinced that reforming or even dismantling such programs is ever as ruinous as predicted. About 20 years ago when Canada could no longer sustain its spendthrift ways and had to undertake a program of austerity, all the usual suspects were prophesying a doom that never materialized. And nobody has written more about the ruinous effects of welfare, particularly on the black community, than Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He was a famously serious and sober guy, and I doubt there is a single modern politician more venerated on both the right and left as a teller of hard truths than he. Yet, when Clinton signed welfare reform into law, he voted against it and predicted nothing short of the end of the world and cannibalism in the streets. Nothing of the sort happened, of course, and it's all very laughable in retrospect. It's as good an illustration as I've ever seen of how even a smart man who knew a lot about the subject was still ultimately paralyzed by fear about what would happen if the government actually made a fairly modest change to a welfare program.

Ill try to reply when i get home. Stuck at a wedding right nao

Oh, I see.  No problem.

This guy is taking it way to far IMO by discussing using "deadly force" on a pregnant mother. I do however will admit that I side much more on the "pro-life" movement if you will. But its frustrating that people like me tend to get demagogued on the issue and de-legitimized. It however does not help at all when someone like Todd akin makes such an idiotic and completely ignorant statement regarding rape victims.

There are two main arguments. One says that abortion is a woman's choice because it is regarding the health of her body. One says its not a matter of choice when it involves another human life. I tend to see those in favor of abortion talk about the life in the mother as just a fetus, or a clump of cells that should not be regarded as a human being until they are born. Its true that fetus is the technical term for it, but I find its misused to try to un-humanize the life inside the mother. It is many times used to try to further the argument that the "fetus" is just part of the mother so therefore its their choice to put an end to it if they want.

The debate comes down to what the person considers to be human life and also a little bit of what value they place on human life in general. I think when those in favor of abortion hear the argument against it from me all they hear is that I want to take the choice of a woman's health preferences away. They dont fully grasp my value system in that I consider the "fetus" in development process inside the womb to be fully a human being and at the same level of importance as a living, breathing innocent and decent human adult. it dosnt make sense to those who consider all abortions acceptable. Most of them value it as just a "fetus" or clump of developing cells with no value until it develops enough to be born from the mothers womb whereas i consider the fetus to be fully human and entitled to the right to life given its formation as a human being in development.

I think it comes down to ones value system. One considers the life of the unborn more important than the mothers choice. One considers a mothers choice to be able to terminate the life more important than the right to life of the unborn.

So do i consider myself an "extremist" on the issue? Of course not because my personal value system tells me so. Some people like to put me in a box as not caring for a woman's right to health choices. I simply see this matter completely differently given the involvement of another human life. Of course i am for a woman doing whatever she desires with her body. I only have concern when it is regarding the life of an unborn human being. Now in cases of when the life of the mother is at risk of course i would say do whatever is necessary to try to save both lives. I would err on saving the life of my wife however if given the absolute choice.

It mainly comes down to ones values and understanding how the other side interprets the issue of abortion. There is certainly I think a lot of mischaracterization on both sides of the argument and it will never get close to some kind of resolution until each side understands eachothers values and can translate that into some kind of common ground. Im however not expecting that to transpire anytime in the near future as long as the mischaracterization and misunderstanding exists.