My dad's buried at Arlington and I have been struggling with visiting the site again. I haven't been there since the burial in 2003. Incidentally, a lot of his 'parts' were donated and transplanted too, not sure when harvested. Hmmm.

The only brain activity going on about him now is in my head, my family's, and others, certainly not in his. So why would I visit that place? Like I said, struggling.

You dodged the question by the way.

Does the suicide aspect alter the suitability of the analogy for you??

What is your position on pregnancies resulting from rape or incest?

Force the woman to bear the child.
Force the woman to abort the child.
Let her choose.

Which?

There is no way to give the baby a say, it is still in the womb.

Incorrect.

I acknowledge the force being applied to the fetus, but I also acknowledge that the mother has rights, included protection from force.

On my balance, the mother as a fully developed being is entitled to more protections than a potential being.

Your position weighs the scale the other way.

Under normal circumstances, we were not talking about partial birth abortions, but rather abortions within the first trimester or thereabouts. Late term abortions are typically done in extra ordinary circumstances (mother life, etc.)

Yes, Pro Choice is a code word for Pro Abortion, but you're jumping a huge divide here by saying that Pro Choice (or Pro Abortion) are against giving birth, even if most of PP's business is doing abortions. No doubt many of PP boses and employees have children...

As to a "prominent women's rights' figure in the UK" -- yep, you got a fringe group!

The point that I was trying to make was not to either support or not support abortions. My point was the form of argument or discussion that you presented.

Citation please

Fair enough.

But again, it is not free. We have to pay for it.

Government and government funding should NOT be in the business of social engineering. They should be as minimally intrusive as possible, and no larger than needed.

A fantasy, I know, but one of my favorite ones.

I'll be brief. Abortions performed within minutes of birth are in fact done. Partial birth abortions are legal up to the point an infant takes its first breath. Abortions performed within days of taking first breath are done, called late term abortion. Pro choice is code for pro abortion, because it sounds so much nicer. Planned Parenthood clinics rarely provide prenatal care for women who actually choose to give birth, pushing them off on Medicaid. The quote about killing babies within the first year came from a prominent women's rights figure in the UK, on a BBC broadcast, hardly a "fringe."

Another reason that the car over the cliff analogy doesn't work is where that murder line comes in.

To many people a fetus is not considered a child until after it is born.
To many other people the line is at the third trimester.
To still others the line is after the 1st trimester.
To others (like you) the line is conception.

Where the individual draws that line is the real heart of this issue.

To someone like you the car/cliff analogy works because of where you draw the line.

To many others the analogy does not work because they would not consider the abortion a murder, based upon the development stage.

This of course, ignores the suicide aspect of you driving the car over the cliff in the first place. I think its likely a safe assumption that you are against suicide strongly, based on your position on when life begins.

So tell me does the car/cliff analogy still work for you, even though you would be committing suicide in the process?

I don't like abortions either, you might be surprised how little we differ on that. The difference is that I consider it Immoral to force my beliefs on others.

We all own ourselves and have free will.
I refuse to compromise those two principles.
Therefore I do not force my beliefs on this issue as requirements on others.

Let me try and explain my position on this to you.

Western societies have 2 extremely strong taboos about the taking of human life.

One is murder - the unlawful killing of another human.
The other is Suicide - the taking of your own life.

For your analogy, that would require the person driving the car off the cliff to jump the hurdle of both of those strong taboos at once. Something that movies like Thelma & Louise aside, only occurs rarely.

That is a major flaw in your analogy.

Good observations and comment Jan. I also agree that it is an individual choice, in that I do not want the State determining my morals, or my decisions, and I do not want to determine others, either.The whole abortion thing seems quite weird, in that the same groups who are against it, on moral grounds, seem to also be aginst a lot of the other options to stop getting pregnant, thus pushing the Church State agenda of increasing the population to serve the state and church, which is what I think has been there all along.

No, the question is what to do with dead tissue. Burn it or make it available for scientific research.

I'm just not a big fan of consensus laws or consensus not-laws. I think I would prefer a simpler statement of 'No, its none of your business and leave it to the free market'.

stru; I get your point, but I think that regardless of the reasoning or rational or amount of information provided to the groups or individuals that oppose abortion, there simply is no level of acceptance or reasonableness that can be reached with them as long as it involves in anyway, abortion.

Any information they obtain will be utilized, twisted, and propagandized to continue to attempt to force and control the rest of us. That is the history and won't change till reason can override the superstition and supernatural. That is reality and I prefer to just ignore the irrational and any of their supposedly reasonable requests or demands.

I'd like to get rid of all government funding, but the irrational certainly take enough of it for use in their efforts and would resist any effort to get all of their information published. A line of non-compliance with the irrational must be drawn.

The first big question is should these abortions be even partially funded with tax payer dollars. I say, emphatically, NO!. If it is a choice then the one that chooses should pay...no me, not you, not the lot of us. Second...you play, you pay; (accountability). Rape or 'Real' medical conditions are a Completely different story here.
Third, Their should be a cut off point, that's very clear...and again, medical issues are a different story. This whole feminine issue lacks conscience and is driven by unhealthy misconceptions, hubris and I wouldn't be surprised if it's tied into 'Global De-population' agenda by those that do not value Conscious Human life. These creatures value the earth more than humans and can not create the necessary values to clean up the mess they have made! Post Script: If an abortion is rightfully warranted then the donor parts and stem cells should be donated...shipping cost at the expense of the receiver.

I kid (although it does make some logical sense). At no time have I proposed mandatory birth control; simply free distribution.

Rational laws pertaining to the interaction between people have to do with the use of force. Murder is a clear-cut case of the use of force. Unless you consider a fetus as a living person, no use of force is being used and since it's the woman's body, it is her decision as to whether to abort or not. At least that is the explanation of those who believe in abortion. My opinion is that conception creates a potential human which develops into a viable human in the womb. In this case there is no clear cut case one way or the other. Since this is Galt's Gulch let me present a few bits of the Rand person's opinion. "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet living..." She makes a valid point. I happen to disagree with her, but I think it's better to leave the decision to the individuals involved rather than impose my will on everyone who may want the right to abort.

So, should we terminate laws making murder illegal because that won't stop murder?

Your analogy fails.

Setting aside the question of when a fetus becomes a child, when life begins, or any of the other differences.

Driving a car off a cliff with a passenger is murder for them and suicide for you. That is two deaths, not one.

I'm against passing laws to solve problems. It is that mind-set that has created so many laws on the books that you can be convicted if you do or if you don't. Abortion laws are like Prohibition. People will do it whether or not there is a law against it. In the case of Prohibition people got drunk on the worst kind of rotgut. Everyone knows about the self inflicted or bad abortions. The most important aspect, is that if you want to have and retain a free society, you must be willing to refrain from imposing your beliefs on others. This gives you the right to say no, but also gives someone else the right to say no also.