>>364
"Last time I checked, procreation is the basis, no the actual goal of the human psyche. In a materialistic, sexualized country like America, people are going to have sex, it is a CONSTANT, not a variable, that can only be tampered with slightly."
Bullshit. People can stop having sex if they want. You act like people have no will power or ability to exercise restraint, which is a joke at best.
"When the right makes birth control harder to get to and say how abstinence is the key or else there will be STDs and whatnot, they presume it will have a dettering effect."
If you are responding to my post, and my argument, again, I disagree. It is possible for people to show restraint. **If you aren't responding to what I said earlier, kindly ignore this.**
"Well, virginity pledges, the crusade on drugs and the Death Penalty was supposed to have that too."
The crusade on drugs is supported by the dems as well.
"That worked out just swell! All those people in Africa are doing MINSTREL dancing of moral joy now that organisations that provide birth control and abortions are off America's foreign aid list!"
First of all, foreign aid in general sucks, so this is good. Secondly, tax-funded abortions are not in any way morally sound or in accordance with the values of liberty, whether they occur here, or in some country receiving our foreign aid money.
"Sex will always be there, and the right is, as usual, making the results of this constant more negative and then blames it on Hollywood, feminism, secularism, i.e. the people."
What the hell do you mean by 'sex is a constant'? Sex is not something that is unable to be stopped. People COULD practice abstinence.
"Americans are very stubborn; they started drinking despite all the ensuing social and medical problems simply in order to spite the government during the prohibition."
This kind of thing makes me damn proud to be an american.
"Also, the government can't protect a woman's liberty and the baby's life at the same time, and the women outnumber the babies, resulting in a utilitarian choice"
Fuck utilitiarianism. Sacrificing the rights of one group for the benefit of another group is not justified. If it was, why would we as americans not take all of Bill Gates' money? It would be beneficial in a 'utilitarian' sense, no? We don't do it because it is -=wrong=-. Humans aren't sacrificial animals whose rights are to be sacrificed for the community.
Also note: the right to live is fundamental and inalienable. The right of the women you describe is a right that pales in significance to the right to life. If the right to life is jeopardized, all humanity suffers, including said women.
"If a fetus lacks some or many organic and biochemical facilities, it can not be classified as HUMAN life,"
It is 'human', and it is 'alive', thus it is a 'human-life'.
"or even life at all and limiting abortions then would mean valuing a technical animal (also a potential human if you consider that even a cat has the same biochemical foundation as us) over a living human being who will be mistreated by employers and financially disrupted once the child is born."
So because the woman will possibly suffer discrimination, we are going to give her the right to destroy human life?
"You do not have the expertise to say when HUMAN life is cast-iron, but this means that I have pushed down the limit for abortions - from the onset of personhood to the onset of HUMAN life. That backfired on you."
I don't see how.
"America is not ready for single mothers now, and the influx that would result of a nation-wide ban would harm the economy."
I don't see how. Even if it did, this is redundant, since the human life has a right to continue to live, free from interference.
"I've proven that a ban of abortions raise crime, so I still have the utilitarian edge."
Utilitarianism and the 'utilitiarian edge' is no excuse to sacrifice the rights and liberties of the few for the sake of the many.
"and an all-or-nothing choice that will only make me more convinced that adequately sensible and compromising people like Anonymous are a minority of his side."
I'm not 'crompromising.' Sensible, yes. Compromising, no. If I thought life began at conception, I would settle for nothing less than a full ban. That's not saying I do think that, but I just want to let you know that 'compromise' is not something I'm willing to do if I know I'm right. Moderation or supporting moderate views just on the grounds that they are moderate is stupid. If done, you will invariably fuck yourself up somewhat. Rather, you should support ideas based on their merit, not whether or not they are 'moderate' or involve 'compromise'.