I called Bill to ask if I should go to Subway or just go to the grocery store already and they hung up on me. I BET IT WAS BECAUSE I AM A MAN.
haha awesome! I want to ask him which is better, a kick in the stomach or a wire hanger.
Did you really?
I don't have any decisions pending at the moment, but I want to call and get advice! It's like an anti-women psychic oracle or something!
I thought of a decision! I want to know if I should grow my bangs out or keep cutting them. I called and it said the line was busy. :[
Does he have email? That way I could email him a pic of me with bangs and he would have better info to make my decision for me.
Ok calling again. It just keeps rining. It has been ringing for about 2 minutes. No answer. This guy doesn't even have voicemail. No wonder he is so backwards.
The pro-choice argument isn't really "I should choose what happens to my body" so much as it is "I should be allowed to choose based on MY beliefs - not someone elses"

Pro-lifers believe abortion kills a person. Well that's their deal and all but the Problem is in that they want to dictate that belief to everyone, regardless of other people's (Pregnant women reallY) beliefs.

If I don't agree with pro-lifers - abortion kills a person - then I should be free to act accordingly. Their argument is "We decided when a person is a person and therefore YOU have to follow our beliefs and act accordingly" That's where the convergence is that you don't see.

The argument seems to be about two different things but it isn't. It's about making choices for a woman's body based on what should be a personal belief system - who's belief should dictate that choice? The individual woman or a group outside of her?
If I don't agree with pro-lifers - abortion kills a person - then I should be free to act accordingly.

Every once in a while you hear about someone killing their own children. What if such a person were to defend their actions as saying that it's their personal belief that children under the age of five aren't people, so they weren't comitting murder? This isn't a purely speculative question - many cultures have held that infanticide is as acceptable as abortion. Would you be comfortable leaving that decision to the individual parent? I wouldn't, and I think the pro-lifers see the situations as differing only in the age of the child, so while I don't agree with them I can see where they're coming from.

Or to go back to the slavery example, many slave holders didn't believe blacks were people. Should they have been free to act on that belief? Many really looked at themselves as the ones being oppressed, since they saw it as their property rights as being under attack. How is that different?

(answer to rhetorical question: the difference is that we're right and slavers are wrong)
Forgive me - I was so combative in my response that I failed to say what I think we *should* be doing. The best way to fight the pro-lifers is to say, "You are wrong about the facts: here are reasons A, B, and C why a fetus is not a person, and because it isn't, abortion isn't murder."
I see what you mean and in some respects, I agree with you. It just so happens that, simplisticly speaking, I believe abortion is murder yet I am pro-choice. Why? Because my decision about the philosophical/religious question of whether or not abortion is murder is MY choice, not anyone elses. As it is a question of personal belief, much like "do you believe that your higher power wants you to enforce its laws?" is question of personal belief, it is not incumbent upon ME to force my definition upon anyone else. I have all the right in the world to try to convince people of my definition, should I choose to, but it is not my right to enforce the consequences of that definition upon someone else.
Hmm... do you, then, think that there should be no laws against any kind of murder, since other people might have differing definitions?
And no, I don't think there should be no laws against any kind of murder, otherwise we'd not be eating meat and Nazis would be running the world. I'm sure I'd be dead too.
We're getting in to a lot of double negatives - am I correct in interpreting you as meaning that you think murder (or at least some murder) should be illegal?

If so, where do you, personally, draw the line at what murder should be legal (since you say you think abortion is murder but you don't think it should be illegal) and what murder shouldn't be legal?

(of course, murder strictly means "unlawful killing", so technically murder is always illegal or else it wouldn't be murder, but I think you and I are using it in the more general sense of "unethical killing")
lol even though you read my other response I would like to point out that your question, as stated is difficult to answer being as I'm not sure if restructuring of government is a part of what you ask. "being legal" is sort of an open-ended question, if one is not exactly a rabid fan of current legal procedure, don't you think?
and seriously, to save what little reputation I have at this point, I will say that I think ALL killing should be illegal. In my utopian world society would make it so there would be NO NEED for killing. Ever.


At this point in human time and within this culture, I'll settle for restructuring society within my lifetime for minimization of damage to human freedoms.
Oh, I dunno. Even if you, like me, would like to see major changes in the way the American legal and political system works, you'd probably want certain things to be illegal under any system, if only basic things like rape, murder, and theft.

So you could, if you like, take it as asking where, in an ideal legal and political system, you would have the line drawn between what killing is allowed and what killing is not allowed, specifically in relation to fetal/child development.
still difficult for me to answer since in my ideal political system there would be no need for anyone to consider such and action and thus if such did happen, society would view the women responsible as in need of mental care.

That is NOT to say that I think a woman who gets an abortion should be put in a mental institute, it is to say that I believe a woman who aborts her fetus does so becuase she sees it as the lesser evil. Which, at this point in our society it often is. Being as I am not in the shoes of each and every woman who has an abortion, I cnnot currently condone a system that criminalizes such a decision. I've made that same decision six times - thrice becoming a mother and thrice denying myself that privilege.
if a fetus doesnt count in a carpool lane, it doesnt count as a seperate entity. thats my line and until I get free bridge fare for my in utero passenger KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY WOMB.

hehehhe :>
yes. i am going to start a movement. FETUSES ARE PEOPLE TOO! FREE CARPOOL TO ALL PREGNANCIES! total parody of the pro-life movement. we can protest toll plazas, huge signs with those fetus pictures on them driving in a car.
I suppose I should have added that of course your argument ad absurdum works to some extent but the defining line, as far as society and the law goes, is that once a baby is viable and outside the womb - that is, no longer completely dependant upon the mother, then it is considered a human with the basic rights - life liberty and pursuit of happiness. There has to be a dividing line somewhere and it's been drawn - outside viability. Pro-lifers seek to change that dividing line. Pro-choices seek to keep that line the same because before that line, it already agreed that the definition becomes intensely personal.
Pro-lifers all believe that "life begins before birth"

pro-choice believes "the decision of when life begins should rest with the individual woman"

Everyone agrees that deciding when life begins is the crux of the argument. It's just that pro-life camp thinks they should define that crux for EVERYONE and pro-choice believes that definition should be a personal choice.
It's all about the benjamins baby