PaleRider: I must thank you for the thoughtful replies to my posts and I appreciate all the time you have put into organizing your arguments. If I am not as clear and concise, it is not because I am merely "grabbing various piles of crap and hurling them at the wall hoping that [i] can get something to stick," but because I am new to this issue, and had never felt before that I had to rationalize it beyond the fact that a fetus grows in a mother's womb and is therefore her rightful domain. Only recently have I come to realize that although women have made a great deal of progress in asserting their rights, there is a serious danger approaching and I may need to join in their defense.

I now believe there is a chance that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton may be overturned, so I am trying to learn more ways to say that it is not only a bad idea, but so is any further attempt to create a national ban on abortion.
(If someone wants the latter, I think they are in a pickle in regard to overturning RvW & DvB, at least on 9th & 10th Amendments grounds, because a national ban would be fought against for the same reasons).

I am glad that you agree with me that a woman should be able to have an abortion when her own life is in danger. There are plenty of other people who seem to think the new life is preeminent and the mother should give up her life in order to birth it. If you were to get it your way, will you fight those who want total bans, or allow them to have their way, too?

I am also glad that you seem to favor a system that goes after the "law-breakers" after the fact, and does not require women to register with some state authority upon becoming pregnant. Yet, there are some who would prefer preemptive measures. If you were to get your way, I wonder if you and I will be able to stop the pregnancy-police from getting their way too?

And that brings me to my real question: Do you favor a system that lets the states make their own laws regarding abortion—with some creating total bans and some allowing it in all circumstances—or a national law that allows abortion only when it threatens the life of the mother (still not clear on how you feel about her health but not her life being in danger, including her mental health)?

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

Putting foreward one logical fallacy after another does not constitute rational discussion. It is clear that you can't defend your position in a rational manner because as I have pointed out before, there is no rational defense for the pro choice position. You prove my point.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You became irrational before you even got to the logical fallacy claims.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

No problem. I do hope you have come to realize that it is damned difficult, if not impossible to conjure up a rational defense for abortion that is honest at its foundation.

I believe you are right that RvW and DvB will soon be overturned. I do follow cases moving through the lower courts and laws presently being written in various states that are sure to trigger lawsuits that will come before the Supreme Court for exactly that reason. If RvW and DvB are overturned, it will be on the grounds that unborns are indeed living human beings and therefore persons. Justice Blackmun acknowledged in his majority decision in RvW that should the question of personhood (human being) be answered, RvW would necessarily be struck down because unborns would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

The recent rulings by various courts and law written by congress that makes killing an unborn in certain conditions either murder or manslaughter has created a conflict that the court is going to have to address. An unborn can not be either a living human being or not a living human being based on what its mother cares to call it. It is what it is without regard to what she wants to call it. Under the demand for equal protection, the court is either going to have to admit that all unborns are living human beings or none are and today, it simply is not possible to make a rational argument that unborns are something other than living human beings.

A total ban will never happen because we all (mothers included) have the right to defend our lives. Someone doesn't have to be threatening you with intent in order for you to invoke your right to self defense. It may be tragic, but a woman does have the right to defend her life. Law that prevents her from terminating if her life is in danger runs against the grain of equal protection.

We are innocent until proven guilty. However, if a woman becomes caught up in an ongoing investigation being done on a known or suspected abortionist, she should be punished just as if she were caught up in an investigation on a hit man should she contact him to kill her husband while the investigation is ongoing. I don't believe law would ever be enacted that required a woman to register upon learning that she is pregnant and I would be opposed to such law.

If abortion is banned on the basis of the fact that unborns are living human beings and therefore persons which is the most likely senario under which RvW and DvB would be overturned, the question is moot. Look to the 14th amendment for your answer:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Under the laws governing self defense, one may invoke the right to defend one's life if one's life or long term health is in iminent danger. In the case of pregnancy, a medical board would be the only rational way to make the decision because none of us is really qualified to know if either our life or long term health is in iminent danger with regard to medical issues.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Is that just more talk or can you point out a specific irrationality on my part?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Lol, I could but I won't bother because you would simply call it a logical fallacy.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Right. If you could, you know you would. And it is good to see that you are starting to consider whether or not your arguments are rational or fallatious.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Oh great, now you are going to tell me what I would do if I could and tell me what I'm thinking...

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

What's wrong with letting the least capable among us all,,,kill off their "unwanted"?

Think about it. If the first thought/instinct of a "female" of low intelligence/liberal is to kill it's child,,, why stop it?

I certainly don't want to support the inbred creature thru more Taxes... Or, deal with more "Liberal Public School Rejects/ turning into Gang Trash.

True?

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

Because you are suggesting that it is just fine to kill a child because its parents don't meet some arbitrary standard that you have set in your head.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma