Author Topic: Abortion and the Death Penalty (Read 2997 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #150 on:** October 30, 2005, 09:52:04 AM »

lasz... lasz... lasz...

Quit trying to read so much into it. My view about abortion is simply this, and it's not new.

"I SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE."

That's it. The whole enchilada.

lazs2 · « **Reply #151 on:** October 30, 2005, 10:05:41 AM »

you mean...LAZ quit trying to pin me down.

I am asking you when is that right not hers... you seem to be saying that so long as there is even a toe still in the cow.... you have no problem with killing that child.

A womans right to choose? what a cliche.. what cowardly pap... Let someone else take the heat.

If I were given the chance to vote on it then I would vote that no viable child that did not endanger the mother would be killed. Up till then..

I support the mothers right to "choose".

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #152 on:** October 30, 2005, 10:06:42 AM »

Lasz, do you believe that the government should legislate morality?

lazs2 · « **Reply #153 on:** October 30, 2005, 10:37:22 AM »

good government should enforce morality... You are the one who believes that government should take a moral view on abortion.

To kill a viable human is simply immoral by any standards that don't involve that viable human being a real threat ...

For the government to make it legal is the government legeslating morality.

To make a law that allows the killing of a viable innocent human for the simple reason of convienence and no other is indeed the government legeslating morality..

I am opposed.

I would not do it. I would not kill a baby out of convienence.

So... pick a law and I will tell you weather I think the government has a right to uphold it on a moral basis. let's go from there. you know how I feel about abortion.... fine till the thing is a viable human and abhorent but fine when it threatens someone else.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #154 on:** October 30, 2005, 12:01:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
good government should enforce morality... You are the one who believes that government should take a moral view on abortion.

Really. I don't recall stating this belief.

Quote

To kill a viable human is simply immoral by any standards that don't involve that viable human being a real threat ...

For the government to make it legal is the government legeslating morality.

To make a law that allows the killing of a viable innocent human for the simple reason of convienence and no other is indeed the government legeslating morality..

So, it's your belive that all abortions are simply a matter of convenience. Okay

Quote

I am opposed.

I would not do it. I would not kill a baby out of convienence.

That's excellent. When you become pregnent you can exercise your freedom of choice by keeping the child.

Quote

So... pick a law and I will tell you weather I think the government has a right to uphold it on a moral basis. let's go from there. you know how I feel about abortion.... fine till the thing is a viable human and abhorent but fine when it threatens someone else.

lazs

I can't think of a single law that should be upheld based upon morality. I believe that our rights should be the basis for our laws.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #155 on:** October 30, 2005, 12:14:45 PM »

“Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights” -- Jimmy Carter

“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants” -- Omar Bradley

“The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous” -- Frederick Douglass

If you broaden your definition of morality to be synonymous with ethics and virtue, (which it is) it is easy to see laws based upon morality.

moot · « **Reply #156 on:** October 30, 2005, 12:38:22 PM »

How could law not be moral?
What else than moral should the basis for one's rights be?

Shuckins · « **Reply #157 on:** October 30, 2005, 01:31:14 PM »

All laws are legislated morality.

One of the original arguments favoring legalized abortion that was put forth by its proponents was that it was needed to protect prospective mothers whose lives and health were threatened by pregnancies that had gone wrong.

One point four million abortions a year goes way beyond protecting a mother's health and lends weight to the "abortion-for-convenience" arguments of its opponents.

It would be easier to lend a sympathetic ear to feminist arguments for their "right to choose" if so many had not already apparently chosen to spend an excessive amount of time flat on their backs with their feet in the air.

lazs2 · « **Reply #158 on:** October 30, 2005, 02:44:34 PM »

sandie... all I can see is that we don't understand each other at all.. Pithy seems to be a way for you to avoid questions or debate.

you claim that I think all abortion is a matter of convienence when that is not what I said at all. I said that killing a viable human being for the sake of convienence is immoral... to me, a viable human being is one who could survive outside the mother. It is not simply a matter of convienience to kill such a child that endangered the mother. simple enough?

I don't think anyone here finds your wishy washy "so long as it's attached to the mother it is a lump of crap" morality. If this were the case them why would punching a woman in the stomach and making her abort be a crime? should it be a crime? what kind of a crime?

Should the mother be able to smash the little dickens head in as it pops out (or hire someone to) and then just throw it in the dumpster? seriously... how do you feel about that?

As for the law and morality... I do not believe that humans are obligated to obey an immoral law... It would be moral to oppose sending jews to death camps say. To say... well.. it is the law so I will do nothing is the immoral way.

your stance on abortion is very black and white in some respects... you want someone else to make the decision and to be able to hide behind that.... you avoid seeing what may be going on with a total black and white... "it is never wrong so long as the mother ok's it" That is a very convienient attitude that sheilds you from taking any stand at all.

but... what matter to you if I say that abortion of a viable human for the reason of convienience is wrong? convienence is not even important to you... if the woman flat out told you that she wanted the abortion because she simply needed to fit into a certain dress by a certain time.... You would have to say "well... it is a womans right to choose after all"

Who made women saints and above the law? where does it say that they get a pass just because they may do the lugging around for the first 8 or 9 months? what special privilige to kill people does that give em? I have spent more inconvienience on roomates... should I have been allowed to kill em?

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #159 on:** October 30, 2005, 02:54:37 PM »

shukins... exactly but...

I will be honest. My daughter was not ready to have a child. I told her to abort it or to put it up for adoption. This was all very early in the game... first three months.

I would have been fine with either decision. As it was... she chose to keep it and actually believed that she could be a mother... she could not... I won't go into the details but my ex and I had to take the baby away... I am helping to raise my grand daughter... Lovely little girl. I feel no guilt about knowing that I had made the previous suggestions... that was then... this is now. I love her dearly but she is a trial to raise at our ages... raising kids is for the young..

It is VERY inconvienient... too bad. At one point...late in the pregnancy... my daughter waivered. Both her mom and I told her that it was too late.

I stand by that decision.

anyhow... that is my stand on abortion and that is my stake in the whole thing. I do not claim any special insight into the whole mess because of this but... I do say that I have been true to my beliefs. I also say that inconvienience is not a very good reason to kill a human.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #160 on:** October 30, 2005, 07:51:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... all I can see is that we don't understand each other at all.. Pithy seems to be a way for you to avoid questions or debate.

You're just bitter because I generally ignore rhetorical questions.

Quote

you claim that I think all abortion is a matter of convienence when that is not what I said at all. I said that killing a viable human being for the sake of convienence is immoral... to me, a viable human being is one who could survive outside the mother. It is not simply a matter of convienience to kill such a child that endangered the mother. simple enough?

You've hammered on this particular topic again and again and again. Sorry if I misjudged, but I got the impression that you thought there were just two kinds of abortions; those of convenience and those where the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother.

Quote

I don't think anyone here finds your wishy washy "so long as it's attached to the mother it is a lump of crap" morality. If this were the case them why would punching a woman in the stomach and making her abort be a crime? should it be a crime? what kind of a crime?[/b]

You want a black or white answer and there isn't one. This fits right in with my belief that it's the mother's right to choose and no one elses. Does it seem inconsistent to prosecute someone for killing a fetus but not the mother or her doctor? Sure, it is inconsistent, but I'm okay with this. It is the mother's right to choose. If she says the fetus is going to live to reach birth, than it is unless there are medical reasons not to.

Quote

Should the mother be able to smash the little dickens head in as it pops out (or hire someone to) and then just throw it in the dumpster? seriously... how do you feel about that?

This is an assine question so far from the realm of reality that it doesn't deserve an answer.

Quote

As for the law and morality... I do not believe that humans are obligated to obey an immoral law... It would be moral to oppose sending jews to death camps say. To say... well.. it is the law so I will do nothing is the immoral way.

Well... IMHO, sending jews to death camps was a violation of their rights. Whether it's immoral or not doesn't make much difference.

Quote

your stance on abortion is very black and white in some respects... you want someone else to make the decision and to be able to hide behind that.... you avoid seeing what may be going on with a total black and white... "it is never wrong so long as the mother ok's it" That is a very convienient attitude that sheilds you from taking any stand at all.

You see... I don't have a womb. If I did, I wouldn't allow anyone to make decisions for me about what I do with it. So, I treat women they way I would want to be treated if I were in the same situation.

Quote

but... what matter to you if I say that abortion of a viable human for the reason of convienience is wrong? convienence is not even important to you... if the woman flat out told you that she wanted the abortion because she simply needed to fit into a certain dress by a certain time.... You would have to say "well... it is a womans right to choose after all"

Obviously, I have more faith in humanity than you do. Or was this another of those ridiculously extreme rhetorical questions?

Quote

Who made women saints and above the law? where does it say that they get a pass just because they may do the lugging around for the first 8 or 9 months? what special privilige to kill people does that give em? I have spent more inconvienience on roomates... should I have been allowed to kill em?

lazs

Knock yourself out. Kill as many people as you like if it helps you get over the bitterness of not having a womb of your own.

lazs2 · « **Reply #161 on:** October 31, 2005, 07:57:17 AM »

so... you have no answers? didn't think so.

women dump babies in the dumpster all the time... people hit women in such a way that they misscarry all the time and the law calls it murder or manslaughter.... inconsitent?

yeah...you are "inconsitent".. your whole view on the issue is a party slogan.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #162 on:** October 31, 2005, 09:40:20 AM »

I'm not a member of any political party.

What exactly was your point again?

Sixpence · « **Reply #163 on:** October 31, 2005, 10:27:22 AM »

Based on morality huh? Well, then let's bring prohibition back

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #164 on:** October 31, 2005, 11:35:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
Based on morality huh? Well, then let's bring prohibition back

Prohibition was a miserable failure of a policy on sevaral counts.

1. It should have been a statutory law and was misplaced into the constitution. The constitution limits government, while prohibition limited the citizenry.

2. It shouldn't have been a statutory law either.

3. The majority of Americans believe it is not immoral to drink a beer, so the law was unenforcable

If you were trying to make the point that a law that goes against the accepted morals of the citizenry will fail, you have made a good point.

The reason that abortion stirs such controversy is because the percentage of the population is not a huge majority in favor of either direction. Many of us reside in the middle ground.