[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's what Congress has said, not what the Supreme Court has said. US Code 108-212 is not a Supreme Court ruling. 1. Not comprehending what the Supreme Court has said in things you've yourself quoted. 2. Conflating a Congressional Act with what the Supreme Court has ruled. Strike 1. Secondly, unless you can demonstrate a Supreme Court case and ruling on the Unborn Victims Act, the Supreme Court has been silent on the issue. It has neither been upheld, nor overturned in court, because the Unborn Victims Act hasn't been ruled on in court.

I'll take the strike for the wrong court. Unborn Child is the term upheld in most State courts and has never been challenged, that I can find. "Human Being" at conception has also been sustained in State court rulings. Nothing has ever legally countered an opinion that a human being begins at conception.

e.g., NEVADA:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

NRS 200.210 Killing of unborn quick child; penalty. A person who willfully kills an unborn quick child, by any injury committed upon the mother of the child, commits manslaughter and shall be punished for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000

Unborn victims' rights have been upheld in State Supreme courts and not yet challeneged to the Supreme Court:

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (Missouri)
The statute, inter alia: (1) sets forth "findings" in its preamble that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing," §§ 1.205.1(1), (2), and requires that all state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with the same rights enjoyed by other persons, subject to the Federal Constitution and this Court's precedents, § 1.205.2...

This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In Commonwealth v. Cass, the defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide after he struck an eight and a half month pregnant pedestrian, thereby killing her viable fetus. The court held that the legislature, in enacting the vehicular homicide statute, contemplated that the term “person” would be construed to include viable fetuses. This conclusion, the court reasoned, was supported by legislative intent.

The text of the law is:
Whoever . . . operates a motor vehicle while . . . under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drug, depressants, or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue, or whoever operates a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered and by any such operation causes the death of another person, shall be guilty of homicide by a
motor vehicle

[/quote]I am guilty of false attribution. You have not invalidated my premises for 1 and 2 however.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As already demonstrated, under scrutiny your reading of the "exact language" of the text is suspect, and in at least one case, demonstrably incorrect. There is therefore no reason to take your position at face value, and great reason to suspect you do not have the support you think you do.

Then don't take it at face value. Either prove that I misquoted Blackmun or take it as cited. I have the support I need to conclude protection of potential life is a valid state interest.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You have no basis for that, since Blackmun stated one of the reasons personhood could not be resolved is because the medical field could not reach a consensus. Strike 3.

Missing the point. Prove that the Blackmun descision of the compelling point was an empirical conclusion. His reasoning for choosing the end of the first trimester was stricktly in consideration of the health prospects for the mother. His logic that before the first trimester maternal mortality from abortion is less than mortality from childbirth misses the point. Per fact 3 he has established that "the State does have an important... and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." His compelling point is based only upon medical knowledge of mortality, which completely misses any consideration for the interests he himself declared exist. He used a medical argument to determine state's interest unrelated to health; an implied Fourteenth Ammendment concept of personal libery infraction. The protection of personal liberty in NOT a medical decision, and thus using medical arguments to establish a compelling point wherein this liberty is superceeded is a non sequitur.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your facts have been demonstrated to be unsound, and your arguments faulty, either on the basis of poor understanding of facts, or poor rationale for reaching your conclusions.

Just by you saying so? We think not. While the validity of some points needed more support, nothing presented by you has rendered any argument unsound.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your facts do not back your conclusions. Therefore your argument is false. The conversation is frozen until you acknowledge this.

Your entire counter simply consists of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" without even putting a single supportable statement.

The burden is upon you alone. Present logical counters, or keep your opinions out of it.

Your pathetic argumentation skills are on display.

---------- Post added 04-03-2012 at 09:52 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree with Imperator. There is no point in continuing this thread, particularly since it is clear by now that no evidence or argument could ever change the OP's opinion. It is equally clear that the OP is not going to change anyone else's mind. There are a number of responses I could make to the last post, (for example, there is plenty of evidence of long term psychological problems in people who have given an unplanned child up for adoption) but I no longer see any reason to waste my time doing so, since nearly all of my previous efforts have been ignored or dismissed. I see no reason to continue to bang my head on a brick wall. If I wanted to do that, I'd just go have an argument with my ISFJ mother.

And this is exactly my point. The pro-choice movement is purely founded in emotion; while all rational arguments point counter to it.

Note what you said: "evidence of long term psychological problems in people who have given an unplanned child up for adoption"

Fear of "potentiality for emotional stress"

Every single argument in this thread in opposition fits within that category. Fear is the singular motivation for all pro-choice decisions.

No single argument has defeated the Roe v. Wade decision that "potentiality of life" is a compelling state interest. That is a rational argument empirically supported, and your emotional appeals miss the point.

No argument has ever given empirical support that the woman's right to liberty outweighs the child's right to life. The woman's right to health and life do outweigh the child's right to life, but liberty does NOT. You have no rational argument, and none has ever been attempted to counter that salient fact.

In other words, even though you only have one single thread to search through, you will not post a single logical dissent.

You surrender.

---------- Post added 04-03-2012 at 10:06 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. False dilemma. Prove that "regrets" and "no regrets" are the only possibilities. The test is subjective. There is a margin for error. There are degrees of regrets. "No regrets" is an absolute. You need to support that empirically rather than just saying "all who did not report regrets had none." What was the question exactly ? 1-Do you have any regrets? or 2-Do you regret not keeping your child? Because it's it was the first and not the second, then the fact that only some 30% of women answered yes is really bad for your cause. And if it's the first, there are degrees, for the women who answered no and those who answered yes. If it's the second, not really.

You offered another question, not support for your claim. You have absolutely no idea how many women have "no regrets" using this study, except that it is "something less than 70%, +- margin of error."

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You offered another question, not support for your claim. You have absolutely no idea how many women have "no regrets" using this study, except that it is "something less than 70%, +- margin of error."

Let's backtrack a bit.

31% of the women said they had regrets.

How does that NOT mean that 69% of them said they didn't have regrets?

[Cooper]

Pro Choice is just that....CHOICE......unlike Pro Lifers that shove their self-righteous morals down the throats of other people. And you cannot deny that that is what they do.

Its time to abort this thread.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (Missouri) The statute, inter alia: (1) sets forth "findings" in its preamble that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing," §§ 1.205.1(1), (2), and requires that all state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with the same rights enjoyed by other persons, subject to the Federal Constitution and this Court's precedents, § 1.205.2... This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Webster is not your best shot since the SCOTUS decided the issue narrowly. In other words, they did not decide whether the Missouri preamble in question was constitutional because the preamble was never used by lawmakers to restrict abortions in any meaningful way. As I have stated before, the case that set the current standard for abortion is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The standard is any regulation that places an undue restriction on the mother's right to an abortion is illegal.

"The sum of the precedential enquiry to this point shows Roe's underpinnings unweakened in any way affecting its central holding. While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable. An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."

—Planned Parenthood v. Casey

[Magda]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And this is exactly my point. The pro-choice movement is purely founded in emotion; while all rational arguments point counter to it. Note what you said: "evidence of long term psychological problems in people who have given an unplanned child up for adoption" Fear of "potentiality for emotional stress" Every single argument in this thread in opposition fits within that category. Fear is the singular motivation for all pro-choice decisions.

As you should know if you've actually read all of my posts, this is not my reason for being pro-choice.

I am pro-choice because: 1) I don't believe (based on my scientific understanding of human development, which I presented earlier and you ignored) that an early stage fetus is a person yet, and 2) I believe women should be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion or not based on their own morals and values, rather than someone else's. I believe it is wrong to force other people to follow your moral beliefs when they don't share them, particularly when there is not a clear societal consensus on the issue.

I only brought up the trauma resulting from carrying a child to term and giving it up for adoption, in response to your statement that "Other troubles may arise, but no evidence shows it to be anything close to abortion trauma."

I find it particularly amusing that you are criticizing your opponents for 'Fear of "potentiality for emotional stress"' when precisely that fear was the entire basis of your opening argument.

Since you have just stated that fear of potential emotional stress is not a valid argument, it appears that you have just defeated yourself.

[Imperator]

Vogon, you refused to acknowledge your arguments are invalid, therefore the conversation is over. I have no desire to converse with a brick wall.

You may either choose to believe the reason nobody believes you is because we are all illogical, or you may open your eyes and realize nobody believes you because your arguments are crap.

Whether you want to live in a fantasy world or not is now entirely your problem.

	Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As you should know if you've actually read all of my posts, this is not my reason for being pro-choice.

He doesn't read, or listen.
He's been straw manning the pro-choice argument since the OP.

That he uses an emotional appeal in the OP, then claims it's a pro-choice fallacy, is entirely the issue. His posts have no connection to reality, he seems to exist in a world where he's some sort of Einstein and we're all drone chimps.

You're free to continue, but I stand by my last point. He refuses to acknowledge his arguments are invalid, therefore the conversation is done.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's backtrack a bit. 31% of the women said they had regrets. How does that NOT mean that 69% of them said they didn't have regrets?

Sylogistically you're issuing an illicit major.

The fallacy is constructed like this:
If all A are B;
And NO C are A;
Then no C are B.

Obviously this is not logical.

Let's put your argument together:
A = {women who report regrets}
B = {Women with regrets}
C = {Women who don't report regrets}

If all {Women who report regrets} are {Women with regrets} : (this is what the report says)
And no {Women who don't report regrets} are {Women who report regrets} : (obviously)
Then no {Women who don't report regrets} are {Women with regrets}.

Non sequitur. It is very possible that some {Women who don't report regrets} are {Women with regrets}.

Logic. Sucks, eh?

[JTG]

It's only a logic failure if you assume a significant number of people are lying to the survey.

While this does happen to some degree, you can't just decide to ignore survey results. If it worked like that, what would be the point of conducting surveys?

If a statistically significant number of women report having regrets, then why is it not safe to assume that this closely corresponds to the number of women having regrets?

Likewise, why would you assume that women who answered "no" to the "do you have regrets?" question somehow do regret it? They must be lying to themselves. Is that it? They just can't face the fact that they're murderous monsters.

[Subgenius]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Logic. Sucks, eh?

Well, considering that your logic is based off the rationalizations of modern church cannon which is based off the ramblings of greedy and/or insane 5000-1600 yr old Italians and Jews, I don't think you have any room to judge.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's only a logic failure if you assume a significant number of people are lying to the survey. While this does happen to some degree, you can't just decide to ignore survey results. If it worked like that, what would be the point of conducting surveys? If a statistically significant number of women report having regrets, then why is it not safe to assume that this closely corresponds to the number of women having regrets? Likewise, why would you assume that women who answered "no" to the "do you have regrets?" question somehow do regret it? They must be lying to themselves. Is that it? They just can't face the fact that they're murderous monsters.

I don't ignore the results, but unlike you neither do I invent my own results. The way you cherry pick assumptions is the problem, and my dissection of the sylogistic logical fallacy should make that abundantly clear. Seablue simply asked why the black-and-white "Stated they had regrets/ Had no regrets" dichotomy is illogical and I demonstrated it.

You assume the accuracy of the survey as if it were axiomatic. I rely on stated facts except where assumptions are clearly axiomatic. It is never safe to assume any highly personal and emotional opinion can be accuratley collected on a survey sheet whose sample population bias isn't even known. If you've ever learned CPR you'll find that the vast majority of women experiencing a heart attack deny anything is wrong while it is happening. Emotional bias exists, deal with it.

	Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, considering that your logic is based off the rationalizations of modern church cannon which is based off the ramblings of greedy and/or insane 5000-1600 yr old Italians and Jews, I don't think you have any room to judge.

Sylogistic logic is rationalized modern church canon of greedy insane ancient Italians and Jews?

Wow. Show us a better reference perhaps?

	Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As you should know if you've actually read all of my posts, this is not my reason for being pro-choice.

I do read them as time permits. The hyperdefensive sensitivities of your ilk have a gang mentality causing a propensity for as nauseum repetition of talking points in bulk volume. Instead of addressing logical counters to personal opinions of faith, I have to spend time picking through what looks most relevant.

Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am pro-choice because: 1) I don't believe (based on my scientific understanding of human development, which I presented earlier and you ignored) that an early stage fetus is a person yet, and 2) I believe women should be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion or not based on their own morals and values, rather than someone else's. I believe it is wrong to force other people to follow your moral beliefs when they don't share them, particularly when there is not a clear societal consensus on the issue.

As do I. If your moral conviction is not based on societal consensus and scientific fact, why logically would you impose your moral beliefs on the unborn? Society has already declared that it believes killing the unborn is punishable with qualifications. This necessarily evidences that the unborn have some value as a person. I will echo your statement as it is my very own belief: I believe it is wrong to force other people to follow your moral beliefs when they don't share them, particularly when there is not a clear societal consensus on the issue. The issue at hand is that one person holds the moral belief that a certain human being doesn't deserve life, and imposes that belief upon another. By our concurrent statements, this should not be permitted.

Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I only brought up the trauma resulting from carrying a child to term and giving it up for adoption, in response to your statement that "Other troubles may arise, but no evidence shows it to be anything close to abortion trauma." I find it particularly amusing that you are criticizing your opponents for 'Fear of "potentiality for emotional stress"' when precisely that fear was the entire basis of your opening argument. Since you have just stated that fear of potential emotional stress is not a valid argument, it appears that you have just defeated yourself.

It is in fact the basis of the OP but not the singular and foundational basis. Also the "fear" (statistically proven fact) of "emotional stress" are not even remotely equivalent. Any stress from bringing a life to bear can be countered with rational thought and counseling much more easily than the damage of understanding that you have killed. In this regard, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils (if procreation can be classified as "evil") rather than the false dichotomy you erect.

The foundational basis of the OP is the empirical evidence that a given policy harms people, while the alternative is only assumed to be harmful based on a historical misapplication of a policy (coathanger abortions).

As to the assumption that I don't read or respond, well, that's just projection. Name one single argument that I have not completely defeated with logic. I destroyed the opinion that society or the law does not recognize humanity from conception. I destroyed the opinion that potential human life is not a valid state interest. I destroyed the opinion that the origin of personhood is established at some point. I have used only case law and facts in arguments, meaning to refute me is to refute established facts. You rely mostly on opinions and emotions, which is why you are so easily frustrated.

Prove me wrong and I have always gladly admitted defeat. False attribution to Supreme Court: granted. Straw Man: Granted. I pretend to hold no agenda other than truth. Prove logically killing the unborn is not violating a right, I will concede. You only have faith and opinions at this point.

Exactly.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is your time to give your best Pro-Choice sales pitch!

You're assuming that all anyone wants is your approval?

I'm sorry you can't reconcile your difficulty in dealing with these stories.
Your approval is unnecessary.



Leave judgements to your God.

[Subgenius]

	Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, considering that your logic is based off the rationalizations of modern church canon which is based off the ramblings of greedy and/or insane 5000-1600 yr old Italians and Jews, I don't think you have any room to judge.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, considering that your logic is based off the rationalizations of modern church cannon which is based off the ramblings of greedy and/or insane 5000-1600 yr old Italians and Jews, I don't think you have any room to judge.

Your powers of deductive reasoning are spectacularly underwhelming.