I think if the pro-choice crowd answered these questions honestly, it would show an inconsistency in their thinking.

1. What is a more serious decision for a minor - having sex or having an abortion?

2. Should a sixteen year-old be allowed to legally make her own abortion decisions?

3. Should we have statuatory rape laws?

1. Having an abortion. It involves a few thousand dollars and a lot of pain. That said, even having to contemplate it means you didn't accomplish the former properly. Be aware though, that any attempts to humanize a gaggle of reproductive cells before it even begins to differentiate itself from other mammals will not find weight with pro-choicers.

2. The ultimate decision should be left in the hands of a sixteen year old, yes. The law should also require parental advisory in all cases except gross estrangement.

3. My personal feeling is no. I don't feel that non-violent and non-coercive sex should be considered rape. I do recognize the need to protect young women though, so I don't think it would be out of line to consider a misdemeanor charge for most offenders, with a provision to make it a felony if the offense is severe enough.

in the old days, especially among "primitive" cultures, abortive plants were known. and they are still known.
modern man is an idiot.
they teach their kids to be kids until they are 18, and then expect them to make wise choices?

1. Having an abortion [is the more serious decision].
2. The ultimate [abortion] decision should be left in the hands of a sixteen year old,
3. My personal feeling is no [statuatory rape laws].
If abortion is the more serious decision, should a girl of any legal-abortion-decision age be legally allowed to have sex with a 25 year old male?

No.

Then you see the inconsistency, right?

You can't prosecute a child for having sex. You prosecute the adult.

1. I suppose the abortion is the more serious decision, although I'm not sure what you mean by this question.
2. I am not sure about this. I would say yes. I think that the age of consent should be 16, so if the age of consent were 16 then yes. If the age of consent were 18 then the age at which one can legally decide to have an abortion should be the same.
3. Yes, of course there should. A 30 year old who has sex with a 12 year old should be prosecuted; I don't think anyone has issues with that. However, I think that 16 should be the age of consent, and people under 16 should only be able to have sex with people who are within 2 years or so of their age. Many states, including my own, have laws like this, and they prevent a 19 year old with a 17 year old partner from getting in trouble.

If abortion is the more serious decision, should a girl of any legal-abortion-decision age be legally allowed to have sex with a 25 year old male?

It's the other way around. Should a 25 year old guy be allowed to have sex with a 16 year old?

It's the other way around. Should a 25 year old guy be allowed to have sex with a 16 year old?
No.

The simple point is this:
A young girl is not allowed to legally decide whether or not she may have sex.
But she can decide whether or not to have an abortion.
Which everyone seems to feel is a much more serious decision.

Similarly, a "minor" is not allowed to ask the school nurse for an aspirin, but can ask a doctor for an abortion.

There's something wrong there.

I think if the pro-choice crowd answered these questions honestly, it would show an inconsistency in their thinking.

1. What is a more serious decision for a minor - having sex or having an abortion?

2. Should a sixteen year-old be allowed to legally make her own abortion decisions?

3. Should we have statuatory rape laws?




1.) I feel having an abortion is a more serious decision because it requires surgery,more money than buying some condoms would cost,and recovery time.

2.) Not all 16 year olds are mentally mature enough to understand let alone make that kind of choice. Honestly,something like this should be on a person to person basis. Alot of places that do abortions require a parent or guardian to be on the premises and sign everything along with the 16 year old.

3.) This one is a bit touchy,simply cause again,there are alot of far more mature teens than when I was one. Hell,my parents could have nailed at least 3 of my ex boyfriends for statuatory rape simply because I was 15 and 17 at the times I dated them. But they trusted my judgement and me to make the right choices. Should there be a law in effect? Certainly. A law would help in cases of child predators immensely. I don't think that it should be used just to split your kid up from someone you don't like,but if your 12 year old is dating a 19 year old,you have problems and so does that 19 year old.

That an abortion is a more serious decision than having sex should make it even more of something the teenager/woman herself should have control over.

No.

The simple point is this:
A young girl is not allowed to legally decide whether or not she may have sex.
But she can decide whether or not to have an abortion.
Which everyone seems to feel is a much more serious decision.

Similarly, a "minor" is not allowed to ask the school nurse for an aspirin, but can ask a doctor for an abortion.

There's something wrong there.
I'm pretty sure that in the places in which a minor can get an abortion without parental permission (which is certainly not everywhere), the age of consent reflects that. In most states, the age of consent is younger than 18. Therefore, the minor IS allowed to legally decide whether or not to have sex.

No.

The simple point is this:
A young girl is not allowed to legally decide whether or not she may have sex.
But she can decide whether or not to have an abortion.
Which everyone seems to feel is a much more serious decision.

Ask yourself why we have these laws. The purpose is to protect the minor. How about we flip the equation; what if the parents try to force their daughter to get an abortion and she doesn't want one?

Also, it's really easy to find inconsistencies in the law. Why can an 18 year old join the military and potentially die and not be allowed to buy a beer? Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol is legal and far more dangerous?

Ask yourself why we have these laws. The purpose is to protect the minor. How about we flip the equation; what if the parents try to force their daughter to get an abortion and she doesn't want one?
I read a story about just that in one of my teen magazines. The girl in question was 17, and if she had lived in a different state she could have kept the baby and disregarded her parents' wishes. As it was, in the state she was in only the permission of the parents was needed.

That an abortion is a more serious decision than having sex should make it even more of something the teenager/woman herself should have control over.
The determination of when an individual can make a legal decision is not based on the seriousness of the decision. It's based on the age of the person and the state's determination that the person is not responsible for their decisions.

Not all 16 year olds are mentally mature enough to understand let alone make that kind of choice. Honestly,something like this should be on a person to person basis.

The law does not, and cannot, function that way.

1. Ask yourself why we have these laws. The purpose is to protect the minor.
2. Also, it's really easy to find inconsistencies in the law. Why can an 18 year old join the military and potentially die and not be allowed to buy a beer?
1. That's exactly right. And the way the minor is protected is by having a parent or guardian be responsible for their more serious decisions.
That's how it's usually done. Thus the inconsistency.

2. It was 18 at one time. The eighteen year olds ruined it for themselves with bad decisions and dangerous behavior while drunk.

1. That's exactly right. And the way the minor is protected is by having a parent or guardian be responsible for their more serious decisions.
That's how it's usually done. Thus the inconsistency.

In the example I gave, the minor isn't protected. Your asking for consistency when it isn't practical, just like with the drinking age.

a long time ago a kid stopped being a kid and treated like one when they hit puberty. they knew and were expected to grow up, take responsibility, and help out.
they were far more mentally mature at a younger age than now.
maybe "legal" age should be bumped up to 30 for women, and about the time a man dies of old age for men.

In the example I gave, the minor isn't protected. Your asking for consistency when it isn't practical, just like with the drinking age.Which example was that?

If you're talking about the drinking vs. military service decision, as I said, eighteen year olds used to have that privelege. Those who couldn't handle it ruined it for themselves and others.

The states felt they were old enough to make the decision, but the cold statistics forced their decision as a safety issue.

The determination of when an individual can make a legal decision is not based on the seriousness of the decision.
Then why are you pretending that it is?

It's based on the age of the person and the state's determination that the person is not responsible for their decisions.
Sure, if the decision in question involves legal culpability for potential screwups. Then the idea of the person being responsible for their decision comes into play. But if there's nothing to hold her accountable for, like, say, an abortion case, which only involves her, then we should afford that determination based on the maturity of the female to make such a decision, and possible alternatives like parental involvement. The state cannot play nanny. Sixteen is a good enough age determination of the maturity required to make a medical decision that's more serious than taking sleep medications and less serious than getting chemotherapy, barring special cases like elective plastic surgery.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About one of every 43 U.S. infants is physically abused or neglected annually, and those babies are especially at risk in the first week of their lives, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its first report on maltreatment of babies up to age 1 that 91,278 of them were physically abused or neglected in 2006.
Other new government figures showed that 499 babies up to age 1 were killed in maltreatment cases in 2006.
About a third of the maltreated infants -- 29,881 -- were abused or neglected before they were 1 week old, mostly during their first four days, the CDC said.
Physical abuse included beating, kicking, biting, burning and shaking, and neglect included abandonment or failing to meet basic needs like housing, food, clothing and access to medical care, according to the report.
The findings were particularly troubling because children who suffer such abuse tend to go on to have numerous health and other problems, officials said.
"The findings do demonstrate a clear pattern of early neglect and physical abuse that is largely preventable," Ileana Arias, who heads injury prevention efforts at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters.
Based on data from child protection agencies in 45 states, the report found that more than 2.3 percent of infants up to age 1 suffered substantiated nonfatal maltreatment in fiscal 2006, which ran from October 1, 2005, to September 30, 2006.
"Unfortunately, the report didn't surprise me," Jim Hmurovich, who heads the Chicago-based advocacy group Prevent Child Abuse America, said in a telephone interview.
"When a child is born, that is not wanted, it is not unusual for thes sort of thing to happen. We know that the younger a child is, the higher the rate of victimization," Hmurovich added.
Most cases of maltreatment in the first week were reported by medical personnel, the CDC said. Thirteen percent of those week-old babies had been subjected to physical abuse.
"One hypothesis for the concentration of maltreatment and neglect reports in the first few days of life is that the majority of reports resulted from maternal or newborn drug tests," the CDC report said.
The report said 905,000 U.S. children of all ages were victims of maltreatment in 2006. Maltreatment is the third leading cause of death of U.S. children under 3, Arias said.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About one of every 43 U.S. infants is physically abused or neglected annually, and those babies are especially at risk in the first week of their lives, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its first report on maltreatment of babies up to age 1 that 91,278 of them were physically abused or neglected in 2006.
Other new government figures showed that 499 babies up to age 1 were killed in maltreatment cases in 2006.
About a third of the maltreated infants -- 29,881 -- were abused or neglected before they were 1 week old, mostly during their first four days, the CDC said.
Physical abuse included beating, kicking, biting, burning and shaking, and neglect included abandonment or failing to meet basic needs like housing, food, clothing and access to medical care, according to the report.
The findings were particularly troubling because children who suffer such abuse tend to go on to have numerous health and other problems, officials said.
"The findings do demonstrate a clear pattern of early neglect and physical abuse that is largely preventable," Ileana Arias, who heads injury prevention efforts at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters.
Based on data from child protection agencies in 45 states, the report found that more than 2.3 percent of infants up to age 1 suffered substantiated nonfatal maltreatment in fiscal 2006, which ran from October 1, 2005, to September 30, 2006.
"Unfortunately, the report didn't surprise me," Jim Hmurovich, who heads the Chicago-based advocacy group Prevent Child Abuse America, said in a telephone interview.
"When a child is born, that is not wanted, it is not unusual for this sort of thing to happen. We know that the younger a child is, the higher the rate of victimization," Hmurovich added.
Most cases of maltreatment in the first week were reported by medical personnel, the CDC said. Thirteen percent of those week-old babies had been subjected to physical abuse.
"One hypothesis for the concentration of maltreatment and neglect reports in the first few days of life is that the majority of reports resulted from maternal or newborn drug tests," the CDC report said.
The report said 905,000 U.S. children of all ages were victims of maltreatment in 2006. Maltreatment is the third leading cause of death of U.S. children under 3, Arias said.

I think if the pro-choice crowd answered these questions honestly, it would show an inconsistency in their thinking.
Hm, inconsistency?

Well, how many pro-lifers supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it? You yourself Brooks?

Which example was that?

If you're talking about the drinking vs. military service decision, as I said, eighteen year olds used to have that privelege. Those who couldn't handle it ruined it for themselves and others.

The states felt they were old enough to make the decision, but the cold statistics forced their decision as a safety issue.

The example I was talking about is when the parents want an abortion but the daughter doesn't.

Hm, inconsistency?

Well, how many pro-lifers supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it? You yourself Brooks?
inconsistency?

minors can't get any other non-emergency medical treatment, but elective out-patient surgery is an implied right?:confused:

ok-they're allowed to have control over their own body, but they have to wear a seat belt on the way there?:confused:

Hm, inconsistency?

Well, how many pro-lifers supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it? You yourself Brooks?

It is Immensely a Good Thing that Saddam & Sons have been wiped
from this Planet,thereby ridding the Rape Rooms and Torturing of
decent Iraqi,at all hours of the day & Night.
You can see that I hope.
Leftists dont' give a shit.
Kinda like how Saddam & Sons dint give a shit,what heinous activity
they inflicted upon their own people.

Most cases of maltreatment in the first week were reported by medical personnel, the CDC said. Thirteen percent of those week-old babies had been subjected to physical abuse.
"One hypothesis for the concentration of maltreatment and neglect reports in the first few days of life is that the majority of reports resulted from maternal or newborn drug tests," the CDC report said.
The report said 905,000 U.S. children of all ages were victims of maltreatment in 2006. Maltreatment is the third leading cause of death of U.S. children under 3, Arias said.
Well, let us just kill the phuckers then. I mean, why wait till they are "born"?

We all know that the "jones" for drugs is far more important than a child's life...

Anyone that will harm a child need to be taken out and damn shot. They should not be allowed to be a part of the "human race". If you disagree with that statement... then phuck you.

Evak,

Did any unborn child "sign-up" to be aborted?

And... last time I checked, you could not register go in the military prior to birth.

Hmmm...

Originally Posted by echo2
Most cases of maltreatment in the first week were reported by medical personnel, the CDC said. Thirteen percent of those week-old babies had been subjected to physical abuse.


Well, let us just kill the phuckers then. I mean, why wait till they are "born"?

I agree.

:corn:

Anyone that will harm a child need to be taken out and damn shot. They should not be allowed to be a part of the "human race".


Agreed.

All the more reason --given the statistics that have just been presented to you-- to make abortion available for the portion of the citizenry (i.e., women) who might, for various reasons, not want the clump of cells inside them to be allowed to develop further.

1. But if there's nothing to hold her accountable for, like, say, an abortion case, which only involves her, then we should afford that determination based on the maturity of the female ....

2. Sixteen is a good enough age determination of the maturity required to make a medical decision that's more serious than taking sleep medications

3. ...barring special cases like elective plastic surgery....
1. So you want a maturity EXCEPTION.
THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT!!!!!

2. ...which she isn't allowed to decide

3. ...which she also isn't allowed to decide.

Well, how many pro-lifers supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it? You yourself Brooks?
1. Even the anti-war Catholic church believes in the concept of the just war. The two issues are unrelated.

2. I am not pro-life.

1. Even the anti-war Catholic church believes in the concept of the just war. The two issues are unrelated.
I think otherwise.

People that claim to value life and then later are proponents of conflicts that slaughter hundreds of thousands---it really doesn't give clout to their "protect the fetus" argument.
Reminds me of that George Carlin line:
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

Also, the Catholic church doesn't classify this conflict as a "just war."
2. I am not pro-life.
Oh?

1. So you want a maturity EXCEPTION.
No. 16 sounds like a good cutoff age. No exceptions necessary, except of course in extreme cases.

2. ...which she isn't allowed to decide
I suppose there is a high potential for abuse with sleep meds.

3. ...which she also isn't allowed to decide.
Yeah, that was kind of the point.

1. People that claim to value life and then later are proponents of conflicts that slaughter hundreds of thousands---it really doesn't give clout to their "protect the fetus" argument.

2. Also, the Catholic church doesn't classify this conflict as a "just war."

3. Oh?
1. If you believe this you would have to apply that to WWI and WWII.

2. You asked me how anyone could justify war deaths, not just the Catholic Church.
If one believes there is a greater purpose to the war they sadly tolerate the deaths.

3. I'm anti-abortion, not pro-life.
I believe that a dying person in pain should be allowed to have their suffering ended and I believe in the death penalty in very specific cases.

No. 16 sounds like a good cutoff age. No exceptions necessary, except of course in extreme cases.
It may sound good to you for an abortion decision, but the law still doesn't believe she can have make a decision to have sex with an adult and can't take an Advil at school.

She also can't take out a loan, drive in most places and is just old enough to use a deli slicer.

But an abortion, no prob.

Having a kid could be more detrimental to both teen and child than not having it. If anything the state should mandate an abortion.

You should read the book, Freakonomics. One of the first chapters explains how kids who would have usually been aborted often grow up to become violent criminals. Roe vs. Wade was shown to have caused much of the crime drop in the mid nineties, whereas most of the given reasons were shown to be ineffectual.

Abortion has been around as long as humanity has. There's a good chance that it's an evolutionarily based mechanism. Women may be able to sense when it's not a good bet to have a baby right now. Screwing with that may well be a very bad bet for humanity.

1. Having a kid could be more detrimental to both teen and child than not having it.
2. If anything the state should mandate an abortion.
3. You should read the book, Freakonomics. One of the first chapters explains how kids who would have usually been aborted often grow up to become violent criminals.
4. Roe vs. Wade was shown to have caused much of the crime drop in the mid nineties, whereas most of the given reasons were shown to be ineffectual.
5. Women may be able to sense when it's not a good bet to have a baby right now.
1. How do you accurately pre-determine which ones?

2. How do they accurately pre-determine which ones?

3. Since there is no control group for that "scientific" experiment, how do you prove such a thing?
And who exactly are the "kids who would have usually been aborted"? Why weren't they?

4. Funny, I constantly argue with people here who swear it's economic.
But again, how did these "scientists" come up with this?
If it's based on the fact that there were fewer humans in the crime committing demographic, then fifteen years later there will also be fewer in the medical research demographic and then the supporting Social Security demographic.

5. Oh dear.

1. How do you accurately pre-determine which ones?

2. How do they accurately pre-determine which ones?
They don't. You are arguing that women should not be allowed their own decision in this case, but the risks don't swing the way they typically do. If the state wanted to act in a way that would minimize risk, it would mandate abortions instead of forbidding them.

Read the book, Brooks. He shows both positive correlation, negative correlation for the converse, and isolates the other usually attributed causes and rules them out. (the controls) It's conclusive. And it wasn't a scientific study, it was a statistical one.

Killing an innocent baby is a far cry from killing in war.



Hm, inconsistency?

Well, how many pro-lifers supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it? You yourself Brooks?

How many people did Saddam torture and slaughter?

Did we close Saddams torture chambers?


I think otherwise.

People that claim to value life and then later are proponents of conflicts that slaughter hundreds of thousands---it really doesn't give clout to their "protect the fetus" argument.
Reminds me of that George Carlin line:
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

Also, the Catholic church doesn't classify this conflict as a "just war."

Oh?

1. If you believe this you would have to apply that to WWI and WWII.
Already done.
2. You asked me how anyone could justify war deaths, not just the Catholic Church.
Where? That's not true.

If one believes there is a greater purpose to the war they sadly tolerate the deaths.
Anyone who tolerates mass-death (such as most Americans) is someone I cannot respect.

3. I'm anti-abortion, not pro-life.
I believe that a dying person in pain should be allowed to have their suffering ended and I believe in the death penalty in very specific cases.
Okay, so you're pro-life then.

How many people did Saddam torture and slaughter?
Well, fewer than we have killed since our arrival.

Fewer...... maybe........

One fact remains........ Saddam needed to go.

Some level headed people might blame many of the deaths on the terrorists.
The terrorists are the target, and they do much of the killing themselvs.


Well, fewer than we have killed since our arrival.

Killing an innocent baby is a far cry from killing in war.

1. You mean a fetus, not a baby.
2. We are not in a war. Iraq is an occupation.

One fact remains........ Saddam needed to go.
What of Bashir? Mugabe? Kim Jong Il? among the other people that need to go.

Are we the world police?

Some level headed people might blame many of the deaths on the terrorists.
The terrorists are the target, and they do much of the killing themselvs.
You'll be pleased to know I do blame the terrorists for most of the killing.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/june07/250607BushCheney2.jpg

If one believes there is a greater purpose to the war they sadly tolerate the deaths.

:rolleyes:

If anyone believes there is or ever was any real "purpose" to the Iraq war --other than to appropriate control of that country's oil resources and to vastly enrich the Big Oil and Big Defense cronies of the B*sh Government-- they are sadly delusional.

________________________


One fact remains........ Saddam needed to go.

The ones who truly *need to go* are the conniving, thieving bastards in Washington (along with the imbeciles who support them) who got this nation embroiled in a needless, disastrous quagmire that is going to wind up costing the American taxpayers over 2 trillion dollars.

_______________________

The most cold-blooded, murderous people involved in the Iraq conflict are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military-Industrial and war media complexes – at the soulless pinnacles of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers’ lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.

1. If the state wanted to act in a way that would minimize risk, it would mandate abortions instead of forbidding them.

2. Read the book, Brooks. .... It's conclusive.
1. Should the state only abort poverty-stricken black babies instead of rich white ones?
If you and Freakinomics believe in cold statistics you must be advocating this.

2. It cannot possibly be conclusive.

1. Already done.

2. Me: You asked me how anyone could justify war deaths, not just the Catholic Church.
You: Where? That's not true.

3. Anyone who tolerates mass-death (such as most Americans) is someone I cannot respect.

4. Okay, so you're pro-life then.
1. So when you said "People that claim to value life and then later are proponents of conflicts that slaughter hundreds of thousands---" you were also applying that to people who advocating the defeat of Hitler? Really?

2. Your original question: "Well, how many pro-lifers supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it?"
This wasn't originally about the Catholic Church, it was about pro-lifers.

3. If you're serious about what you said in question 1, you won't get much in return either.

4. The pro-life crowd would strongly disagree with my stance on euthenasia and the death penalty.
But if it makes you feel good to call me pro-life, simplify away. Enjoy.

If anyone believes there is or ever was any real "purpose" to the Iraq war --other than to appropriate control of that country's oil resources and to vastly enrich the Big Oil and Big Defense cronies of the B*sh Government-- they are sadly delusional.
But don't you just wonder sometimes why we didn't just stay in Kuwait in '91 or make underhanded oil deals with Saddam the way France, Germany and Russia did?

There were a lot easier ways to get oil.

1. Should the state only abort poverty-stricken black babies instead of rich white ones?
If you and Freakinomics believe in cold statistics you must be advocating this.

2. It cannot possibly be conclusive.
1. Former Secretary of Education William Bennett suggested just that, with a declaration that, "if you wanted to reduce crime -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Steven Levitt, co-author of the study and book, denies that the theory has any racial implications.

I did some research to shore up my knowledge of the argument and the statistics behind it, but it seems it isn't quite as conclusive as I thought it was. They've been challenged on a few areas, and they've admitted that the challenges were valid, but then reanalyzed the data and shown a smaller, but still statistically significant correlation. Without a degree in statistics I can't determine who's really right here. Statistics is hard, and I don't really care right now to spend hours attempting to make the judgments in an intellectually rigorous fashion. I do find it good that Levitt and Donahue, the team who published the initial paper, are discussing the theory and the statistics behind it candidly, but I can't in good faith continue to make the "conclusive" assertion. You can read the details yourself here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect).

1. So when you said "People that claim to value life and then later are proponents of conflicts that slaughter hundreds of thousands---" you were also applying that to people who advocating the defeat of Hitler? Really?
Well even though I didn't say that, feel free to phrase things in misleading ways. It makes you look awesome.

This wasn't originally about the Catholic Church, it was about pro-lifers.
Again you've taken things out of the context of the conversation. Moving on.
3. If you're serious about what you said in question 1, you won't get much in return either.
How will I go on?!

4. The pro-life crowd would strongly disagree with my stance on euthenasia and the death penalty.
But if it makes you feel good to call me pro-life, simplify away. Enjoy.
Well since the labels pro-life and pro-choice were made to apply to abortion, you're unnecessarily widening the boundaries just to be obnoxious. But yeah, I guess I am the one guilty of simplifying when I disapproved of much of World War 2 but that apparently means I disagree with people advocating the defeat of Hitler.

The law does not, and cannot, function that way.



I know this Brooks,you'll notice I never said it does.
Just saying it would be more logical,but no one ever said laws were completely logical.

Evakian: People that claim to value life and then later are proponents of conflicts that slaughter hundreds of thousands---it really doesn't give clout to their "protect the fetus" argument.
Brooks: If you believe this you would have to apply that to WWI and WWII.
Evakian: Already done.
Brooks: So when you said [that] you were also applying that to people who advocating the defeat of Hitler? Really?
Evakian: Well even though I didn't say that, feel free to phrase things in misleading ways. It makes you look awesome
Misleading? Where?
You're entitled to a sweetly naive philosophy, but if you're in for a penny you're in for a pound.


Evakian: Well since the labels pro-life and pro-choice were made to apply to abortion, you're unnecessarily widening the boundaries just to be obnoxious.
From Wikipedia: Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights

To someone skimming the surface of the issue, yes, pro-life only means abortion. But there is obviously more to it than that and I don't agree with the rest of it.
This was not a "widening of the boundaries".

And for someone who has been on AllForums for as long as you have, you have a very low threshhold for what you consider obnoxious. Widening the boundaries of an argument?
Toughen up.