Joined: Jan. 2006
Well, I'll keep trying for a while. Maybe we can communicate.
|Is there a framework to work with? I mean, what constitutes a social conflict?|
People disagreeing with one another.
That's entirely up to whoever experiences it.
|What constitutes pain? Is emotional pain more aggregious than physical pain?|
|Is the mother's SPECULATIVE PREDICTIONS about the future of HER CHILD represent greater pain than the killing of her child in an abortion?|
That's up to her, not you. If YOU are pregnant (note: a pregnant woman is not a mother of a fetus. She becomes a mother of a child at birth. Not before) then YOU get to make this decision. Nobody else.
|And so my statement was correct as I said nothing about using it further into the conversation. But if you'll care to notice, it was used in an entirely correct context and did not relate to nonpersons.|
You need to re-read what you wrote, in this case. Murder is defined as the *unlawful taking of a person's life.* You're correct that the law may be changed to legalize the taking of a person's life, but in that case, it's no longer murder because it is no longer unlawful.
|Unfortunately, the arguments for wartime and self-defense are infinitely greater than the mere choice of ALL INDIVIDUAL WOMEN to abort their children.|
I hope you can recognize that you just stated a personal opinion not shared by everyone. If YOU find some arguments more persuasive, fine. If others don't, also fine. They're as entitled to their opinions as you are. Or don't you think so?
|The question then becomes, how has this been justified when the science is shining ever more light on what actually takes place in the course of an abortion.|
Try to stay on topic. Let's grant that we know, or can learn, everything there is to know about every relevant fact. NO facts are at issue here at all. What is at issue are legal constructs.
|The moral argument is already strong|
You have an MO here, I notice. You state your opinion as thought it were a fact, and then you attempt draw conclusions based on the logical implications of your opinions. But I really don't consider myself bound by your opinions. I consider them wrong.
|the advocates for abortion have relied upon the ignorance or shere obfuscation of "science" to justify at least in part their arguments for abortion.|
This claim is simply false. No obfuscation has taken place in our discussion. We have granted the accuracy of everything science can learn. Hopefully, we have recognized that the legal issue is something entirely unrelated.
|I think science in now abortion's greatest foe. Legal arguments will evolve to meet this new insight like they have done before.|
Except of course this has nothing to do with science, nor is your opinion any kind of insight. My support for abortion is based on the notion of freedom and liberty - that I will not force you to act according to my opinion, and you will not force me to act according to your opinion. That you are entitled to conduct YOUR life according to YOUR preferences, and I have no authority to prevent this. Nor would I want to, for fear you might turn around and do the same to me.
|Yet, one could easily argue that abortion has not decreased the conflict, but has in fact increased it.|
Yes, but not accurately. What we in the US have done is traded one kind of conflict for another. At the cost of offending busybody religious fanatics, we have granted equality and human rights to all citizens.
|Are the children any less wanted? Are children treated with more or less compassion?|
As a matter of fact, yes. Economists and criminologists and demographers spent some considerable research trying to learn why certain types of violent crimes went WAY down (cut in half! during the 1990s and then stayed down. Exhaustive analysis has provided the answer: the cohort of people who committed those crimes -- poor, bad neighborhoods, lots of drugs, high unemployment, gangs -- *were not born* because they were aborted. In other words, only WANTED children were born. They are better off, and everyone around them is better off. Abortion has without question been a social boon.
|Then the law will evolve to reflect the unprecendent scientific insight into what exactly an abortion constitutes.|
What ARE you talking about? There are no scientific insights here.
|The moral arguments will only be strengthened and the law will bend to the will of the enlightened.|
Which I take it means you and not them? THEY will bend to YOUR moral superiority, right? YOU will not bend to THEIR opinions, because THEY are wrong and YOU are right. Is that it?
|A fact based on the knowledge of an undefiniable entity seems undefiniable itself. Isn't the the argument against ID?[/qote]|
I askied what entity this was, and I notice you didn't answer. so I still don't understand what you're talking about. Evolution is based on observation. In fact, based on many millions of related observations. The argument against ID is, they have ZERO observations. None.
[quote]You are claiming that human life is undefiniable
I said no such thing. I will repeat: a human life begins at conception. It is well defined. We all know what it is.
|If you don't know who or what you are|
Since this is both false and foolish, the rest of your claim is irrelevant. You really do need to learn how to keep on topic.