Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on October 27, 2005, 06:52:29 PM
-
Would Liberals and Conservative swap them? Say, abolish the death penalty in exchange for outlawing abortions?
-
nah, i'd rather know my money is going to bubba, rather than a politicians pocket lining.
-
no because some how the liberals consider it a constitutional RIGHT to have an Abortion, even at tax payer expense and when conficted of a crime. Some how prisoners lose their constitutional right to vote among other things while in prison but still have the right to an abortion.
-
"the liberals" think that? Damn, they really have their **** together to be able to all think exactly the same!
Personally, I'm for killing the fetuses and the criminalses. And hell, I'd be up for killing the politicians too...sort of like a colon cleansing, only what comes out would be much worse.
-
The whole arguement cracks me up.
Libs are for abortion yet against the death penalty.
And conservatives are for the death penalty yet against abortion.
Each side seems kinda hypocritical to me
Least Im consistant. Im pro both
-
Why kill free labor force? Can’t they just work to death?
-
Spoken like true Russian :)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The whole arguement cracks me up.
Libs are for abortion yet against the death penalty.
And conservatives are for the death penalty yet against abortion.
Each side seems kinda hypocritical to me
Least Im consistant. Im pro both
one is innocent, the other is not
-
Originally posted by SOB
"the liberals" think that? Damn, they really have their **** together to be able to all think exactly the same!
yes it's true they all think alike. A woman's right to choose is the most important thing in the world to them blah blah blah
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes it's true they all think alike. A woman's right to choose is the most important thing in the world to them blah blah blah
What I never understand:
didn't she choose to let some joe to deposit their baby batter in her bank?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Least Im consistant. Im pro both
I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
I know quite a few that are pro-choice.
There is a difference.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
I know quite a few that are pro-choice.
There is a difference.
I don't see how you could be one without the other. It's like saying I'm FOR gun control but not against gun rights. Kinda having it both ways don't ya think sandy?
-
Absolutely not.
I don't think it's any of the government's business what a woman chooses to do with her body.
It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice. One has to realize that it is a personal decision not a public one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Absolutely not.
I don't think it's any of the government's business what a woman chooses to do with her body.
It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice. One has to realize that it is a personal decision not a public one.
It's public when taxpayers are forced to pay for it because it's her "Constitutional right"
and what about the father's rights, isn't the fetus half his.....mad from half his genetic material? sorry I'm not buying it that it's a woman's right to kill a baby born or un-born unless her life is at stake.
-
She still laid out the mat and said "Come In"
Criminal acts such as rape or a physical issue which would risk both mother and baby are two exceptions which I can gladly accept as that in the end would attempt to preserve life.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Absolutely not.
I don't think it's any of the government's business what a woman chooses to do with her body.
It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice. One has to realize that it is a personal decision not a public one.
pro choice means that you want abortion to be legal. Anti abortion means that you are against it and do not want it practiced.
I don't see how one could be anti abortion, yet support abortion being legal.
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that litttle tiney detail that a deathrow inmate is usually a convicted murderer while an unborn baby's only crime is having fluffied up parents<----not his fault either.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's public when taxpayers are forced to pay for it because it's her "Constitutional right"
and what about the father's rights, isn't the fetus half his.....mad from half his genetic material? sorry I'm not buying it that it's a woman's right to kill a baby born or un-born unless her life is at stake.
Do the taxpayers pay for all abortions?
As for the father's rights, he doesn't have any. It's yet another good reason to find a good woman.
One more time... I support your right to do whatever the hell you want with your own womb. :aok
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't see how one could be anti abortion, yet support abortion being legal.
It's easy when you don't believe that it's the government's place to make such decisions.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Do the taxpayers pay for all abortions?
As for the father's rights, he doesn't have any. It's yet another good reason to find a good woman.
no taxpayers don't have to pay for all of them but IMHO we should have to pay for NONE of them. The supreme court recently disagreed with my opinion. FOr whatever reason jail time shouldn't interfere with a woman's right to choose.
But why shouldn't the father have rights.....it's half his. The only thing the woman is doing is feeding it. If this is an issue of choice I think if a woman is pregnant she allready made her choice......so did the guy for that matter. If a woman has the right to choose why does the man not have the same equal right?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
If a woman has the right to choose why does the man not have the same equal right?
He's not the host.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
He's not the host.
so when I kick my wife out of my house, I am the "host" and she isn't entitled to anything because I am in possesion of it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's easy when you don't believe that it's the government's place to make such decisions.
Well, the government (society) does make those decisions. Like prostitution, drug use and any number of things people are not allowed to do with their own bodies.
Sandy, what would you feel about abortion if it was conclusively proven that a human life could be defined at, say 10 weeks ?
And in the case of a pregnancy, there are two bodies, the woman's and the baby's.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, the government (society) does make those decisions. Like prostitution, drug use and any number of things people are not allowed to do with their own bodies.
Sandy, what would you feel about abortion if it was conclusively proven that a human life could be defined at, say 10 weeks ?
And in the case of a pregnancy, there are two bodies, the woman's and the baby's.
It would be tantamount to saying a woman has the right to kill her kids (at any age) if she has sole custody over them.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
She still laid out the mat and said "Come In"
OK Golfer.
I deleted my last response to one of your posts on the basis of Bad Karma, but that stuff don't flush.
You were thinking logically the first time you did the nasty?
If so, you are a saint.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
OK Golfer.
I deleted my last response to one of your posts on the basis of Bad Karma, but that stuff don't flush.
You were thinking logically the first time you did the nasty?
If so, you are a saint.
So a kid at 16 can commit murder because he's not responsible for his own actions?
-
my opinion on death penalty if they kill a A380 load of people let the killer die!!:furious
my opinion on abortion is what guy wants to pay child support:rofl
-
this is where the dizzy liberals all fall down from the lefty circle talk
the facts are abortion is used as birth control for the lazy, stupid and the "oops" group (save the rape and incest numbers to justify allowing it to yourself) and is legal murder of an innocent life - for now
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sandy, what would you feel about abortion if it was conclusively proven that a human life could be defined at, say 10 weeks ?
I believe life begins at conception and I support a woman's right to choose.
-
It's always amazing to me how the law defines a life in the case of abortion, as opposed to the killing a woman's fetus.
In one instance the law does not recognise the fetus as a life worth protecting, in the other instance, a person who kills a womans fetus can be charged with murder.
I can't think of anything more assinine.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
In one instance the law does not recognise the fetus as a life worth protecting, in the other instance, a person who kills a womans fetus can be charged with murder.
Again... it's the woman's right to choose. If she aborts (or kills) her fetus, it's legal. If you kill it, you have violated her right to choose and you'll be charged with murder.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So a kid at 16 can commit murder because he's not responsible for his own actions?
Best imprison women for miscarriages then.
-
With the right ACLU lawyer and liberal judge a woman could argue that killing her children is just a really late term abortion......OR could justify it by saying she was denied her constitutional right because she was poor or in jail at the time.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I believe life begins at conception and I support a woman's right to choose.
So you don't think the human life inside the woman should be protected and that the woman should have the right to kill it? Do you put any age limit on the fetus for it to be killed?
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Best imprison women for miscarriages then.
sure if their actions led to them....say smoking crack or drinking a 750 of J&B every day.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Again... it's the woman's right to choose. If she aborts (or kills) her fetus, it's legal. If you kill it, you have violated her right to choose and you'll be charged with murder.
So, you are saying that it should be legal for a woman to murder her fetus.
I thought murder was murder? Why is it murder in one case, yet not in the other? Why wouldn't a person who kills a woman's fetus just be charged with assault on the woman?
-
The right to choose belongs solely to the owner of the womb.
It's that simple.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I believe life begins at conception and I support a woman's right to choose.
so as long as that life has not taken a breath on his or her own, the mother can murder him/her but if some 20+ year old fetus kills someone, it is wrong to kill that animal??
yes - liberal double speak
-
You'd be for trying 16 year-olds in adult court then?
Maybe 13 year-olds?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The right to choose belongs solely to the owner of the womb.
It's that simple.
"right to choose" is just a sanitized way of saying "right to kill"
-
Originally posted by Scherf
You'd be for trying 16 year-olds in adult court then?
Maybe 13 year-olds?
we already do.
-
What, all the time, in all cases?
-
No, but it does happen based on the situation and the crime.
-
Neat.
So, just to get back on track, we were all thinking logically the first time we did the nasty?
If so, we're all saints.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"right to choose" is just a sanitized way of saying "right to kill"
or not.
You see... the moment someone starts talking about legislating abortion rights away, they immediately start talking about exceptions and exclusions. If you truly believe that it is murder and that no woman has the right to choose an abortion, you have to believe that aborting a fetus that resulted from rape or incest is equally murder.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this is where the dizzy liberals all fall down from the lefty circle talk
the facts are abortion is used as birth control for the lazy, stupid and the "oops" group (save the rape and incest numbers to justify allowing it to yourself) and is legal murder of an innocent life - for now
sounds like an effective social and fiscal policy.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
or not.
You see... the moment someone starts talking about legislating abortion rights away, they immediately start talking about exceptions and exclusions. If you truly believe that it is murder and that no woman has the right to choose an abortion, you have to believe that aborting a fetus that resulted from rape or incest is equally murder.
Here is my angle on it.
If the law protects the life of fetus as a life in one case and killing it is murder, then it has to protect the life in all cases regardless.
It's either a legally defined life to be protected, or it is not. That needs to be the first thing straightened out. Which is it, one way or the other....not both.
So yes, if I believed that it is a human life and protected as such under law, then in no instance should anyone be allowed to kill it, unless the woman's life is in danger due to the pregnancy and not aborting would cause the mother and, as a result, the fetus die.
Basically, it's either a human life with full protection, or it is not.
-
Well... It's my take that it's life if the mother chooses it to be so. Otherwise, it's just tissue.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... It's my take that it's life if the mother chooses it to be so. Otherwise, it's just tissue.
But that's not how it's defined in law. The law is defining it as a life in the case of someone killing a womans fetus.....a life that is to be protected.
The woman can't just tell the prosecuter: "it's okay, my boyfriend hit me and killed my fetus, but I didn't want it to live anyway, so you don't need to go any further in the case"
Its a law the woman has no say in. They will go after a murder case.
-
Let me rephrase... it's life unless the mother chooses it not to be.
-
I think this is a rather stupid argument, but hey at least you guys are being civil....for now ;)
-
I say locked before page four.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
I say locked before page four.
probably but the hienas (conservatives) are being pretty civil with the zebra (sandy)
-
I bet this thread ends up changing a lot of peoples' minds, and reveals a lot of new information that no one knew before!
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by SOB
I bet this thread ends up changing a lot of peoples' minds, and reveals a lot of new information that no one knew before!
Kind of like 90% of all the threads on this bb!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think this is a rather stupid argument, but hey at least you guys are being civil....for now ;)
Am I not always? ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Am I not always? ;)
Sure :aok
-
^^^^
Agree with Sandy 100%
I'm just being lazy.
Here's a question:
Would all the guys here still be anti abortion if they were the ones getting pregnant?
To have another have a say in what you do with your life/body?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
I know quite a few that are pro-choice.
There is a difference.
that is what I ment
-
Originally posted by Eagler
one is innocent, the other is not
ahhh but according to the holy rollers we are all born with original sin.
so nobody is innocent
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I believe life begins at conception and I support a woman's right to choose.
so say. on your 50th birthday you will say your 50 and 9 months old?
I beleive the potential for life begins at conception. But untill that fetus is actually outside of the womb and surviving on its own it is a potential life.
Obviously the longer it remains in the womb the higher the potential for life.
but until it is out of the womb and living on its own without the mothers life support system it has the potential.
Babies die right after childbirth every day.
Sometimes for seemingly no reason at all other then, they just died
-
Sandy, NO. NO SANDY NO!
Being Anti Abortion contradicts with Pro Choice.
If you are pro choice, that means you agree with the act of aborting a fetus.
You can't whiddle away that it's a woman's right to do so and so. Nor can you repeat the same argument over and over thinking you are being clever.
And unfortunately for the other Conservatives on this board, I am the first person to call you out on it.
So you need to choose right now. Either you are for abortion, or against it.
You think it's OK to kill Fetuses, or you don't. There is no middle ground. This is a black and white issue.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
ahhh but according to the holy rollers we are all born with original sin.
so nobody is innocent
Perhaps due process is required. Give the fetus a fair trial and if convicted then...
-
It ain't like such a process is "comfortable" for the little lady. The procedure does cause damage to the woman's...uhm...happy place. Cervical scars ain't a walk in the park.
But I digress.
My personal belief is that the fetus or unborn child or little angel or whatever the hell you want to call it is a parasite. It is an organism directly connected to the host (the mother) so it can sustain life. It draws it's nourishment from the host and continues doing so until it is removed. Life may begin at conception, but until that fetus comes out of its special warm place it's a parasite, by definition. If that parasite is doing bad things to a woman and she cannot bear the child because of physical issues, then it's time to remove the parasite.
And before the hippies among us start to whine about my opinion, allow me to say that I speak this way even about my own child who had to be aborted. I've got a somewhat jaded view of all this because of what I had to do...it's not like I'm an expert and I don't claim to be. It's not easy to make that decision...it's never easy. I don't care who you are or what you think of young people...it is not easy.
And it's expensive, too. It's not easy to pay for an abortion when you're working part-time at a grocery store or burger joint trying to bring home money for your girlfriend. Why do you think most teenage fethers run away?
If the child is born and terminated, it's murder. If it's unborn and it's terminated, it's an abortion. That's my opinion and I'm; sticking to it.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Golfer
She still laid out the mat and said "Come In"
Criminal acts such as rape or a physical issue which would risk both mother and baby are two exceptions which I can gladly accept as that in the end would attempt to preserve life.
It's sort of like the NRA view, if you ban assault rifles, it will lead to other bans, then a total ban of guns.
Sure, rape is the exception first, then only if you can prove it was a rape, then making it almost impossible to prove it was a rape.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It would be tantamount to saying a woman has the right to kill her kids (at any age) if she has sole custody over them.
Man, you get more simplistic by the post. You honestly can see no
difference between a partially formed fetus and a child? It is nice of
you to push your beliefs on people you don't even know equally though.
-
"You were thinking logically the first time you did the nasty?"
I'm not Golfer, but I can answer that too....and the answer is an emphatic YES. We aren't ruled by our instincts. That's what elevates us above animals. People who claim otherwise are just making weak excuses for mistakes they've made.
I find this somewhat funny though--a BBS full of men arguing about abortion. I have basically no opinion on the matter personally since I view it as fundamentally a women's issue. I wish the women of America would be so thoughtful as to stay out of men's issues.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
[BI find this somewhat funny though--a BBS full of men arguing about abortion. I have basically no opinion on the matter personally since I view it as fundamentally a women's issue.
J_A_B [/B]
My thoughts exactly. A pretty rare position nowadays though.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Perhaps due process is required. Give the fetus a fair trial and if convicted then...
Probably because its not a life but a fetus.
At which point does a fetus stop being a fetus and start being a baby?
When your born.
Thats when your life begins and why we measure our lives from the time we are born untill the time we die and not 9+/- prior
My life started sept 19th, 1961 when I was Born
Not Dec , 1960 when I was conceived
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think this is a rather stupid argument, but hey at least you guys are being civil....for now ;)
IT is a stupid arguement.
No matter what is said or how it is said or what views are shown.
Not a single person here is going to be able to change and opposing view.
But it is entertaining
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You think it's OK to kill Fetuses, or you don't. There is no middle ground. This is a black and white issue.
To a conservative every issue is a black or white issue. :rolleyes:
Or try this... for black or white... I believe that a person has the sole right to decide what to do with their own bodies. This doesn't stop at abortion rights. This opinion applies to drugs, consensual sex, suicide, and anything else that can be done to one's own flesh.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Man, you get more simplistic by the post. You honestly can see no
difference between a partially formed fetus and a child? It is nice of
you to push your beliefs on people you don't even know equally though.
hey what can I say. I'm a simple man. And honestly if life begins at conception and fetuses think and feel pain what's the difference between a doctor crushing the scull of a baby and yanking him out of a womb and a woman drowning her todler in a bath tub? Yes I know it's simple but I try and subscribe to the KISS method of life as much as possible.
and I seriously doubt i'm "pushing" my beleifs on anyone. This is were I'm not so simple. I beleive in rational discussion of ideas......not in political correctness.
-
I am for the death penalty and I am for the morning after pill.
Death penalty is an absolute and it is used against those who would kill others..
abortion... the premis is that it is the mothers (why just the mother?) right to "choose" choose what? to kill a human being in most cases.
Ok... maybe before the kid is term enough to survive on it's own she has a right to choose.... but.... what point is that?
is there some common ground? do we agree that it isn't the mothers right to choose by pushing the car into the river with a couple of her 2 year olds in car seats to drown?
fairly easy one there...
How bout.... smother it and throw it in the dumpster before it takes it's first breath?
maybe a little bit of a "gray area" there for some....
How bout.... let the head come out and then play whack a mole on it with a chrome ball peen hammer?
even bigger gray area there for some...
How bout.... carried for 6 months and in the same hospital is a bunch of 6 month premies being tended by doctors and nurses that may have also been premies themselves at one time?
even more of a gray area to some.
Maybe the morning after pill will solve everything but probly not... the stupid cow will be too stoned or stupic to take it and too lazy to do anything till 6 months down the road and the debate will start again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Probably because its not a life but a fetus.
At which point does a fetus stop being a fetus and start being a baby?
When your born.
Thats when your life begins and why we measure our lives from the time we are born untill the time we die and not 9+/- prior
My life started sept 19th, 1961 when I was Born
Not Dec , 1960 when I was conceived
Unless you're Korean. They measure age starting from 1 year prior to birth, so they're 1 year old when they pop out. That means their life actually begins BEFORE conception.
Or maybe using birth to measure age is just a matter of convenience.
-
sandie....black and white... no one has the right to kill an innocent human being who is no threat to them.
to a liberal like yourself... everything is a gray area.
lazs
-
So Sandie. Since you think it's a woman's choice, you think it's ok to kill fetuses.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So Sandie. Since you think it's a woman's choice, you think it's ok to kill fetuses.
I think the rights of the host trump the rights of the parasite.
-
parasite? that is rich... cliche rich... the typical "we love humanity but hate human beings" liberal pap.
lazs
-
Here we ago again... the "we don't agree so I must be a liberal" tack. It's tired. :p
You're either for less government or not. When it comes to a person's right to do what they will with their own bodies, I think less government is best.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Probably because its not a life but a fetus.
At which point does a fetus stop being a fetus and start being a baby?
When your born.
Thats when your life begins and why we measure our lives from the time we are born untill the time we die and not 9+/- prior
My life started sept 19th, 1961 when I was Born
Not Dec , 1960 when I was conceived
just another slant to justify murder of the unborn
if the baby in the womb is not "alive", how can it have a heart beat, response to music and other stimuli?
I can see the abortion ruling being supported by the sluts, lazy, ignorant or the women that have a stick so far up their butch arse that they'd never have or hate kids but for a woman that has had a child or a family man that has experienced child birth, for that group to say abortion is not murder baffles me
-
Sandy
Doesn't the government tell us what we can and can’t do with our bodies all the time?
We can’t bungee jump. We can’t do drugs, can’t ride in a car without a seat belt ECT.
Why are the women’s reproductive parts off limits to government law?
Mind you I am pro child murder. In that even though I find it wrong, it is a subjective thing, and none of my business. Still I think the government should determine when that baby is a human and make abortions after that date illegal unless the mother’s life or health is endanger.
I see no valid reason why a woman needs more then 3 months to make the abortion call anyway.
At some point before 9 months it is a living human, and aborting it is killing that life.
Also this is such a stupid issue. Abortion is never going to be banned
.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Here we ago again... the "we don't agree so I must be a liberal" tack. It's tired. :p
You're either for less government or not. When it comes to a person's right to do what they will with their own bodies, I think less government is best.
So, if a woman at 37 weeks pregnancy decides she doesn't want something in her womb anymore, they you are totally ok with her aborting?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sandy
Doesn't the government tell us what we can and can’t do with our bodies all the time?
They certainly do and as I've stated earlier in this thread, I believe we should be able to do whatever we please with our own bodies.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
So, if a woman at 37 weeks pregnancy decides she doesn't want something in her womb anymore, they you are totally ok with her aborting?
I am apathetic at best.
-
What a surprise. The same people taking the same stances and believing they're right.
Jesus hates you.
-SW
-
So sandie... you think that government should not decide on or punish murder? that is government interferance to you?
I am for less government but people should have some protection under law against being murdered.
You still never answered tho. at what point is a fetus not a "parasite" and indeed a human being?
I really don't know myself but am only slighthly uncomfortable with abortion in under 3 or 4 months.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Absolutely not.
I don't think it's any of the government's business what a woman chooses to do with her body.
It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice. One has to realize that it is a personal decision not a public one.
Ka-ching! We have a winner.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's public when taxpayers are forced to pay for it because it's her "Constitutional right"
Just out of curiosity, can you post the figures on how many abortions are paid for by taxpayers?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
With the right ACLU lawyer and liberal judge a woman could argue that killing her children is just a really late term abortion......OR could justify it by saying she was denied her constitutional right because she was poor or in jail at the time.
I'm amazed at the lengths some people will go to so that they can continue to argue.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How bout.... let the head come out and then play whack a mole on it with a chrome ball peen hammer?
Lazs,
I frequently disagree with your views but I wouldn't miss reading them for the world. :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You still never answered tho. at what point is a fetus not a "parasite" and indeed a human being?
Birth.
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Just out of curiosity, can you post the figures on how many abortions are paid for by taxpayers?
Do a search for the recent decision for an inmate in missouri or mississippi. All it takes is precident.
and no I'm not arguing I offering an opinion that in today's day and age doesn't seem that far of a stretch.
-
Damn. Ain't this subject a bombshell.
Again.
It's years of abortion rights debate vs ......what?
Lets break it down. Yer an old dude. You've lived a full life. Yer terminally ill.. (we all are from birth, but that's a different subject) You no longer wish to continue sucking air through a resperator and defecating on yourself twice a day. You talk it over with your family, you decide it's time to call the game.
But wait.. you don't have that option. Government sez suicide is illegal. Plus no life insurance payout. They won't pay death benefits on a suicide.
You kewl with that?
Next step. Yer a vegtable. Before you were a vegtable you were a lazy slob and never left a will. You did happen to mention to yer wife you wouldn't wanna live life as a burden to your loved ones. She decides to honor your wishes..
But wait.. we have to let a court decide. Activists get involved.. the family is raked thru the mud. Financialy ruined. Humiliated. Embarassed. Prying eyes with no vested intrest suddenly are in control of not only your destiny, but those of your loved ones.
You kewl with that?
Frankly I'm not. I don't think the government should have the thumbs up or down on your decisons about your personal property.. and if your body ain't your property then dammit, just what in hell IS your property?
Your life, your personal corpus, it's contents, right on up to and including the right to decide your manner and time of going should be reserved as yours.
And ain't that the core issue?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Frankly I'm not. I don't think the government should have the thumbs up or down on your decisons about your personal property.. and if your body ain't your property then dammit, just what in hell IS your property?
Your life, your personal corpus, it's contents, right on up to and including the right to decide your manner and time of going should be reserved as yours.
And ain't that the core issue?
Gawdamn, it scares me when we agree.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
And ain't that the core issue?
Actually, I think the core issue is that when it comes right down to it, people are selfish. Selfish, right down to the point of wanting everyone else to live how they think they should live, just so the world can look and feel exactly how they want it to.
-
God says...
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him
Let hubby decide, otherwise no foul, it ain't your call, just her mans. Says God.
-
Originally posted by Booz
God says...
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him
Let hubby decide, otherwise no foul, it ain't your call what another woman does, just her mans, says God.
Seagoon's shade account when he's drunk? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Russian
Seagoon's shade account when he's drunk? :rofl
Nope, just some arbitration from some god. Did you have some disagreement with it?
-
Originally posted by Booz
Nope, just some arbitration from some god. Did you have some disagreement with it?
As an atheist, I do not involve myself in religious discussion. My previous comment was a joke, not a statement. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Gawdamn, it scares me when we agree.
Yah. Creeps me out, too.
Fer some reason I have an urge to pull out an old Firesign Theater LP... ahh here it is. How appropos. "We're all Bozo's on THIS bus.."
-
Yeah, but who agrees with God?
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him
-
Originally posted by Eagler
just another slant to justify murder of the unborn
if the baby in the womb is not "alive", how can it have a heart beat, response to music and other stimuli?
I can see the abortion ruling being supported by the sluts, lazy, ignorant or the women that have a stick so far up their butch arse that they'd never have or hate kids but for a woman that has had a child or a family man that has experienced child birth, for that group to say abortion is not murder baffles me
And a group that says it is baffles me
Like I said, it is a potential life. Untill it is actually out of the "host" as someone else here put it and living on its own. There is no guarentee that it would live outside of the host.
Sperm are alive too. Look at some under a microscope sometime
They follow instincts and make for the egg at which point they bond with and mutate into a potential human life.
So take it a step back even farther .Life begins with ejaculation
OMG I just realised!
Im a mass murderer on such a scale that would make all the worlds tyrants put together look like a sunday school class picking flowers and singing Kumba ya.
Be back later. Think I'll go murder s'more;)
-
Originally posted by SOB
Actually, I think the core issue is that when it comes right down to it, people are selfish. Selfish, right down to the point of wanting everyone else to live how they think they should live, just so the world can look and feel exactly how they want it to.
Actually therin lay the problem.
It has to be "my way"
Everyone has to tell everyone else how hey should live their lives or how or what they should beleive. That is one of the main problems with religeon.
Everyone beleives so fully that their way is the right way they not only cant and wont see it any other way. But must insist the people that dont beleive what they believe changes to suit thri beleifs
That is what makes Choice, the best choice.
If you beleive its wrong. Dont do it. Its as simple as that. THAT is YOUR choice.
On the other hand I do not see where anyone has any right to tell or force anyone else into their beleif system
I would never tell a woman it is right or wrong to have an abortion no matter how I personally felt about it.
Its not my place nor is it my choice to make.
-
Originally posted by Booz
Yeah, but who agrees with God?
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him
Somehow law of ‘god’ heavily resembles ‘The Law Code of Hammurabi’, just less violence.
-
less?
-
Originally posted by Booz
less?
Yes, less.... since 'woman's husband will' can be interpreted differently from a person to person.
209, If a man has struck a gentlemen’s daughter and caused her to have a miscarriage, he shell pay five shekels of silver.
210. If that woman has died, they shell put to death his daughter.
-
Now THAT is justice
-
two-fer's
-
Originally posted by SOB
Actually, I think the core issue is that when it comes right down to it, people are selfish. Selfish, right down to the point of wanting everyone else to live how they think they should live, just so the world can look and feel exactly how they want it to.
That's interesting, in a selfish way.
I don't want to force anyone to live like I do or believe what I do, as long as they do not kill another human life and obey the laws of our society.
A fetus is a human life and it is protected under law as a human life, except if the mother wants to kill it, and that's the problem I have. That law needs to be 100% consistant one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That's interesting, in a selfish way.
I don't want to force anyone to live like I do or believe what I do, as long as they do not kill another human life and obey the laws of our society.
A fetus is a human life and it is protected under law as a human life, except if the mother wants to kill it, and that's the problem I have. That law needs to be 100% consistant one way or the other.
so if the law were changed so that a Fetus wasnt considered a human life untill it was born. You would be ok with that?
the only reason the law is as it currently is. Is to provide the government with another charge that can be filed against a criminal.
Actually I remember hearing a long time ago that long ago it was legal for a parent to kill their child.
And that is where the saying came from "I brought you into this world I can take you out of it"
Dunno for sure if its true or not, but it makes for an interesting story
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
so if the law were changed so that a Fetus wasnt considered a human life untill it was born. You would be ok with that?
the only reason the law is as it currently is. Is to provide the government with another charge that can be filed against a criminal.
Actually I remember hearing a long time ago that long ago it was legal for a parent to kill their child.
And that is where the saying came from "I brought you into this world I can take you out of it"
Dunno for sure if its true or not, but it makes for an interesting story
and some say my hypothetical posts are to the extreme :huh
-
DREDIOCK
how old are you sir?
do you have kids? grandchildren?
Has someone close to you been involved with an abortion?
just wondering what you base your opinion, feel free not to answer
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie....black and white... no one has the right to kill an innocent human being who is no threat to them.
So if a woman is raped she should be forced to carry the baby?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So if a woman is raped she should be forced to carry the baby?
this argument is so lame ... don't forget incest.
ask yourself;
how many rapes/incest result in pregnacy?
of those, what number chooses to abort rather than say give up for adoption?
what percent of total abortions done, are done to kill a rape/incest baby?
is that percentage even a whole number?
-
kinda silly to dress it up in different scenarios.
The base issue of who's in control of your own personal destiny renders any further question of circumstance moot.
-
why do people have such a hard time with this issue?
Abortion in the united states is lawful infanticide. LAWFUL murder. **** happens. Apparently the Supremes decided it has something to do with privacy as guaranteed in the constitution. Actually its the worst most dehumanizing piece of judicial legislation ever conceived on planet earth and in my estimation lowers the United States to the level of a 3rd class nation. But it is the law, so....ABORT!!! ABORT!!! ABORT!!!
:O
-
This pissing contest is getting pathetic. Some of the replies in this thread remind me why I lose faith in the human race every day.
-
I think the rights of the host trump the rights of the parasite.
So you think it's a right to murder someone? Oh, I'm sorry. Abort an unwanted fetus?
You forget, that the moment an unwilling Fetus will be killed, it becomes a PUBLIC issue. There is nothing private about it.
Suicide, on the other hand, is a different matter. I have no problem if a Terminal or non Terminal person wants to kill himself.
But how is it that we can decide to kill or not kill those who have no say in the matter?
Your logic is flawed and contradictory. Even me being in an incredibly drunk state can pick it out from a mile away.
-
yes, a child is a parasite. Oh wait.....a child is not a baby.....oh wait, a baby is not a fetus...oh wait, a fetus is not a human being.
Its simple really.
I support abortion. Its an unavoidable reality, but like any form of lawful homicide (self defense, capitol punishment) it MUST BE STRICTLY REGULATED by LAW.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and some say my hypothetical posts are to the extreme :huh
No, he said the law neds to be more consistant 100% one way or the other.
Just trying to find out if he would find either way acceptable or it it were just the way he wants it
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
At which point does a fetus stop being a fetus and start being a baby?
When your born.
So no qualms about aborting with just hours to go before natural childbirth were to occur? I have qualms about that. I have no qualms about a woman taking a pregnancy test, finding out she's a few weeks pregnant, and deciding to end it then and there, but qualms about it with only a week to go.
Prosecutors have sent murderers to prison with two counts of murder when they killed a pregnant woman. Apparently your position is not on firm legal foundation either.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this argument is so lame ... don't forget incest.
ask yourself;
how many rapes/incest result in pregnacy?
of those, what number chooses to abort rather than say give up for adoption?
what percent of total abortions done, are done to kill a rape/incest baby?
is that percentage even a whole number?
What is your point, that she should have to carry the baby?
btw, if I read corectly, there were 94,000 rapes in 2004, they didn't say how many got pregnant, but out of that many, I would say there were a few more than you would like to acknowledge
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What is your point, that she should have to carry the baby?
btw, if I read corectly, there were 94,000 rapes in 2004, they didn't say how many got pregnant, but out of that many, I would say there were a few more than you would like to acknowledge
Just the opposite - rape/incest should be allowed to abort if the mother wanted to go that route
The truth is, those are very small percentages of the total (say 100,000 attacks of which 1000 result in pregnancy), I've heard less than 1% - the majority are just after the fact "birth control" of everyday irresponsible fornication. It has to do with the sanctity of human life or the lack of it...and the selfishness that has consumed the world today
Peace
-
Ok sandie... fair enough.. at least you gave a black and white answer... you said that a fetus ceases to be a "parasite" at birth..
earlier you said the the host's needs trumped those of the parasite... so... you are saying that if the mother is 9 months pregnant but really really "needs" to get into that new dress for her friends bachlorette party... she should be able to get an abortion... the fetus is a parisite with no rights.
I agree in one way with you... many people are parasites and they certainly interfere with my needs from time to time.. In the mothers case... what if the baby doesn't draw breath and she just smothers it as it is born and then throws it in the dumpster... we are talking about a matter of a minute difference here between what you would allow and the dumpster using mom.
I admit to being cowardly on the subject and look at humans as only fetus that can survive outside the womb and develop into a healthy human.
I just get squeemish when we kill something that is completely human in every way just as a matter of convienience. Not really sure that is the human thing to do.
no religion involved. I just don't like to see innocent people killed... especially the most innocent. I thought we were supposed to protect em? now I am being told that we only protect their lives if the mother says so?
I honestly think that a lot of men take the easy position of abortion on demand simply because they think it will increase their chances of getting laid and... because... heck... you can't really see a fetus... let the doctor see it and deal with it... It don't look like a human to us... just some big fat part of a woman.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I admit to being cowardly on the subject and look at humans as only fetus that can survive outside the womb and develop into a healthy human.
I just get squeemish when we kill something that is completely human in every way just as a matter of convienience. Not really sure that is the human thing to do.
no religion involved. I just don't like to see innocent people killed... especially the most innocent. I thought we were supposed to protect em? now I am being told that we only protect their lives if the mother says so?
I honestly think that a lot of men take the easy position of abortion on demand simply because they think it will increase their chances of getting laid and... because... heck... you can't really see a fetus... let the doctor see it and deal with it... It don't look like a human to us... just some big fat part of a woman.
lazs
I don't trust the government to make the right decision with regard to abortions. It is indeed a serious decision and I believe that most women do not enter into it lightly. Certainly, there are many that abuse the right to an abortion, but given the choice between letting the government or letting the individuals make these decisions, I think the latter is the lesser of two evils.
-
and I belive that your answer is even more cowardly and wishy washy than mine..
by a long shot.
By your logic... I should not trust the court in a murder case of someone I cared about and it should be my right to choose... I just take the shot and gun him down in the street.
You must realize how dehumanizing your answer is.
You never answered any of my questions... just pap from you. worthless and cowardly soundbites.
you seem to be allright with the "wait till the head appears and then play whack a mole with a chrome ball peen if that is what the mother wants" idea...
or the nine month abortion to fit into new clothes idea.
you seem to feel that black and white solutions are evil. How do you figure life and death are not black and white? you seem perfectly able to make those black and white decisions and on something as easy as a whim or convienence... you lump non viable humans in with viable humans and dire emergbency in with convienence and whim... You are real "black and white" on this one... or..
real cowardly moraly.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
or not.
You see... the moment someone starts talking about legislating abortion rights away, they immediately start talking about exceptions and exclusions. If you truly believe that it is murder and that no woman has the right to choose an abortion, you have to believe that aborting a fetus that resulted from rape or incest is equally murder.
Here's another way to say it, sandman.
Killing a human being is always Homicide. Sometimes homicide is murder. Sometimes homicide is justified.
Can we agree on that? I think so, since you justify the killing of a human life (your words) while that life is being carried by the mother. Now, our only possible argument is "under WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES is homicide justifiable?"
I say that it is justifiable under the following circumstances:
1. In self defense.
2. In defense of the innocent.
(1) would cover war, assault, and (gasp) abortion to SAVE THE LIFE of the mother.
(2) would cover war and assault.
Neither (1) or (2) applies in the event of a "convenience" abortion, an abortion performed for essentially "lifestyle" reasons. That makes those abortions unjustifiable, and therefore murder.
It's really pretty simple, in concept. In practice, it is very complicated. People such as you who treat it like an all-or-nothing battle of absolutes aren't thinking.
-
but shubie.... what if the mother couldn't fit into her old clothes because of the parasite she was carrying?
surely you would allow abortion in that case?
lazs
-
I went back to find the actual questions. There weren't that many. I think you want rebuttal for many of your points, but I didn't bite.
Originally posted by lazs2
So sandie... you think that government should not decide on or punish murder? that is government interferance to you?
The government doesn't consider abortion to be murder. I think the government should punish murderers. So... let's see. No and yes to the first question, and a no to the second.
Originally posted by lazs2
earlier you said the the host's needs trumped those of the parasite... so... you are saying that if the mother is 9 months pregnant but really really "needs" to get into that new dress for her friends bachlorette party... she should be able to get an abortion... the fetus is a parisite with no rights.
It's a rather ridiculous question, don't you think? Okay... here's an answer. A woman this trivial should have her womb removed right along with the fetus.
Originally posted by lazs2
In the mothers case... what if the baby doesn't draw breath and she just smothers it as it is born and then throws it in the dumpster... we are talking about a matter of a minute difference here between what you would allow and the dumpster using mom.
...but it is indeed born. According to the law, it's murder (at least in this state).
Originally posted by lazs2
By your logic... I should not trust the court in a murder case of someone I cared about and it should be my right to choose... I just take the shot and gun him down in the street.
Quite often on this BBS someone can make a point and the counterpoint is to take the stated position and run it out to the nth degree. I'm not playing that by your logic, by my logic game. It's rather pointless to take bits and pieces of my perspective and filter them through yours, expecting me to argue a position that's then assigned to me.
---
I think I have the answer. :) Maybe a form of abortion-control. That's the ticket. Mandatory sterilization for any woman that gets some number of abortions. Hmmm... the liberals won't go for it because it's too severe, and the conservatives won't because it's too lenient.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
It's really pretty simple, in concept. In practice, it is very complicated. People such as you who treat it like an all-or-nothing battle of absolutes aren't thinking.
Ahem... I'm the one that likes gray.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but shubie.... what if the mother couldn't fit into her old clothes because of the parasite she was carrying?
surely you would allow abortion in that case?
lazs
Now, be serious...we're trying to work on his head, here. Sarcasm just muddies the waters.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
DREDIOCK
how old are you sir?
do you have kids? grandchildren?
Has someone close to you been involved with an abortion?
just wondering what you base your opinion, feel free not to answer
No problem.
I turned 44 on this past Spt 19th
2 Kids
1 Boy 17
1 Girl 9
Although I do know a few people who have had abortions. Nobody "close" to me has had one like say, My sister,my wife, former girlfiends or my mother. If thats what you mean.
But, if they found themselves in the position where they had to make a choice I would support them no matter which choice they made.
My Wife for example with our second child paced the possibility of complications due to age and some other underlying factors I'll not get into here.
I asked her what she wanted to do and told her I would support whatever decision she made.
She does not beleive in abortion exept under special circumstances such as rape.
so it was never really an issue.
However, The hospital where she works and geve birth to both of our kids is a catholic hospital which has the policy of "save the baby before the mother" Meaning. if there are complications at childbirth and they have to make a choice between saving the baby, or the mother. the baby wins.
It is a policy I do NOT agree with and made it absolutely,and perfectly clear in no uncertain terms to the doctor at the time that should there be a problem. My wife was more important to me then the baby and he was to go against hospital policy and save my wife.
Fortunately for everybody, including the doctor everything came off withouta hitch.
But even knowing what I know now and looking at my beautiful daugher 9 years later whom I love with every fiber of my being.
If my wife were to become pregnant tomorrow. I would support whatever choice she made. Even if that ment abortion
What I base my opinions on?
They are simply my personal opinions. It is simply how I view it and feel about it.
I dont view a body thats in a long term coma and on life support with zero chance of revival as a"life" either.
Much like a fetus
Its a body,its heart beats it takes in nutrition and various forms of other things only with help. But its not a "life" and at that point without support its not even a potential life
Now that may sound cold but
Its just the way I feel about it
It really doesnt go a whole lot deeper then that
But you see I, Unlike the right to lifers would never try to impose my views on it on them and tell someone else it has to be my way.
That is why I feel Choise is the best and only fair option.
You dont like it. dont do it. That is your choice.
dont get me wrong. Im not like "Yea go ahead have an abortion. and have fun doing it"
I know fully that its a difficult at best decision to make and each person must wrestle with the ideaand live with their own concience and have to make the decision that they feel is best for THEM.
Not the decision that I want or may be best for ME
It is after all her that has to carry the fetus for 9 months and all that goes with it then go through the agony of childbirth. Not me.
I've seen it first hand twice. and there is no amount of money you could pay me to go through that. Not a single part of it
And when it comes to a woman and pregnancy. The mothers rights,needs and wants outweigh the those of the fetus, or mine.
It isnt even a close competition
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... I'm the one that likes gray.
Well, no.
You absolutely support the woman's right to "choose" to abort the baby. That's not gray, at all.
Placing that decision in the hands of a person who already has shown alarming lack of judgement (people have known for a LONG time that coitus causes babies, yet some people continue to think that it can't happen to them). I say that somebody with the interests of THE CHILD in mind should be involved in the decision. That's why we have courts. Perfect system? Probably not. But it could help save the life of many innocent HUMAN BEINGS who currently never get a chance at a life, due to a selfish, immoral act by another human being.
And yes, by the logic I put forth earlier, a "convenience" abortion is immoral. I presume the motivation is selfish.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Well, no.
You absolutely support the woman's right to "choose" to abort the baby. That's not gray, at all.
I also absolutely support the woman's right to "choose" not to abort the baby. :p
-
Originally posted by rshubert
But it could help save the life of many innocent HUMAN BEINGS who currently never get a chance at a life, due to a selfish, immoral act by another human being.
Well, that would cover the fetus involved in a rape, but would you make that person carry the baby?
I am sorry, but you who argue that abortion is murder of a fetus, then say it is ok to murder a fetus of a rape victim are hypocrites and your argument is bogus. Either you believe in something or you don't, get off the fence.
-
well, considering the percentages, the irony is some of you zealouts at christmas dinner probably are asking a slut of a lazy cow to pass the gravy.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Prosecutors have sent murderers to prison with two counts of murder when they killed a pregnant woman. Apparently your position is not on firm legal foundation either.
Actually I beleive it is on two counts
1- Example. If I decide to cut down the tree that is in my front yard and on my property That wouold be my desision and choice I am completely within my rights to do so.
But. If you were to come over and without my consent cut my tree down then I can have you arrested.
there is a bit of a difference between My doing somethign to my property and someone doing something to it without my consent. then my property has been violated and my choice removed from me.
2- Constitutionally under Natural rights.
It cannot be argued that your Body is not your own property. that is among the very basic of natural rights.
Therefore anything that is a part of or inside your body is also your property Including a fetus until the point where it is no longer in your body, they it would automatically have natural rights of its own. But. Untill that point is it inside of and a part of that womans body and she has sole rights over it and the choices that come with it.
Now again, should someone come along and kill that fetus then that womans natural rights have been violated because that choice over what happens to her body and what lies within has been removed from her without her consent.
Now am I personally in favor of such a late term abortion? Myself personally no.
But it is also not my body, and as such I have no rights natural or otherwise over it.
It is irrelevent if I am ok with it or not even if I were the father. My rights over it do not begin untill the fetus has left the womb at which point the fetus has its own natural rights as would I as the father.
but untill that point. Whether I like it or not The fetus is the sole property of the woman
-
No drediock. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.
Human Being is the key phrase there.
If you give a killer 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant lady, you are acknowledging that the baby is a HUMAN BEING. IT IS LIFE.
Now, all those people who are for abortion (not for choice) acknowledge that it's ok to abort a baby because it is not alive. It is not a human being.
Now which is it? If the baby is not a human being, then how can we still charge killers with 2 counts of murder?
-
Just use birth control and do her in da butt!
Abortion is just a fancy word for baby killing simple as that.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I beleive it is on two counts
1- Example. If I decide to cut down the tree that is in my front yard and on my property That would be my decision and choice I am completely within my rights to do so.
But. If you were to come over and without my consent cut my tree down then I can have you arrested.
there is a bit of a difference between My doing something to my property and someone doing something to it without my consent. then my property has been violated and my choice removed from me.
If you gave consent I could legally kill you? (Trees and people are handled differently under our present law.)
2- Constitutionally under Natural rights.
It cannot be argued that your Body is not your own property. that is among the very basic of natural rights.
The question comes up when we try to define when life begins. Pro life: conception Pro-Choice; what is it... the end of second trimester? Viability? Natural Birth?
Natural Birth?... this allows abortions anytime before birth begins. Or is it when the cord is cut... some of the scenarios in this alternative are rather hideous.
End of second trimester? rather arbitrary... Guilt or innocence based on the clock striking a certain hour?
Viability? Depends on location. Within the neo-natal unit at John-Hopkins, viability occurs at a much earlier stage than on a sheep ranch in Wyoming. A Baltimore mother could therefore be held responsible for the death of a child where the lady 75 miles outside Cheyenne would not.
Now am I personally in favor of such a late term abortion? Myself personally no.
So you are in favor of some sort of violation of a woman's rights to her own body within certain parameters.
But it is also not my body, and as such I have no rights natural or otherwise over it.
But are not sure what to do (or whether to do) anything about it.
It is irrelevant if I am ok with it or not even if I were the father. My rights over it do not begin until the fetus has left the womb at which point the fetus has its own natural rights, as would I as the father.
but until that point. Whether I like it or not The fetus is the sole property of the woman
People are not property. A father has the responsibility for the child but has no rights toward decisions made about that child? That seems a rather harsh view of men's rights.
I have wrestled with the question and have not come up with a completely self satisfactory conclusion. I am in favor of a lady being able to terminate a pregnancy when she first finds out very early in the pregnancy. Some lady gets rufed at a party and she takes a drug store test... "Oh ****!"
No problem here with her being able to make the choice to end it. A week to go before birth? I have philosophical problems. I believe that late in the term it would be horrific. Where to draw the line?
Those who believe life begins at conception have a much firmer foundation on which to stand than I.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you gave consent I could legally kill you? (Trees and people are handled differently under our present law.)
I was using trees as an example of property.
You are your own property. Your body belongs to you and nobody else
So you are in favor of some sort of violation of a woman's rights to her own body within certain parameters.
No I am not. I said I wasnt in favor of it. Meaning it isnt what I would favor her doing. Not that I was for being able to stop her from doing it. Thats not my choice to make. Nor is it my right to make that choice for her
But are not sure what to do (or whether to do) anything about it.
Again Thats not my choice to make. Nor is it my right to make that choice for her
People are not property. A father has the responsibility for the child but has no rights toward decisions made about that child? That seems a rather harsh view of men's rights.
People are their own property. My body is my property.I have sole rights over it.
Men have no rights over an unborn child. I will agree with you on that.
Anmd they are forced to support a child they may not have wanted and in some cases havent even fathered. I dont like it or agree with it but that is the way it is.
I have wrestled with the question and have not come up with a completely self satisfactory conclusion. I am in favor of a lady being able to terminate a pregnancy when she first finds out very early in the pregnancy. Some lady gets rufed at a party and she takes a drug store test... "Oh ****!"
No problem here with her being able to make the choice to end it. A week to go before birth? I have philosophical problems. I believe that late in the term it would be horrific. Where to draw the line?
See on a personal basis I agree with all of this. But that is me personally and what I may feel personally might not jive with what another may feel about it.
And I still do not think I or anyone be able to impose my/their feelings on the matter on anyone else as being absolute.
Choice at least gives you that right to choose for yourself.
the right to make that decision for yourself one way or the other based on your own feelings and values and not those imposed on you by another who may feel entirely different.
What if it were another way where abortion was mandatory?
Wouldnt you at least want to be able to make that choice for yourself?
I could even go on to say that one can be against abortion personally yet also pro choice.
Those who believe life begins at conception have a much firmer foundation on which to stand than I.
I still think this is a matter of opinion.
As I have stated before
At conception I beleivethere is a potential for life...yadda yadda yadda
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I was using trees as an example of property.
You are your own property. Your body belongs to you and nobody else
You do not have the right to conspire with me to end your life. If you say it's okay, I agree to do it, we write a contract saying you give me permission, and then I attempt to carry out your wishes, I would be guilty of attempted murder and we would both be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. (except in an extraordinary case in my sate if the Supreme Court agrees) If I were sucessful at least you would be off the hook legally.
I think if we made the same agreement to cut down a tree in your yard, we would not be in nearly the same trouble.
So it seems we are not our own property, free to do with our bodies what we please.
-
Abortion, imo, should be legal. But I do not see in any way where the Constitution guarantees it. Can someone go to the text of the constitution and show me where it says that killing an unborn child is allowable.
Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Abortion, imo, should be legal. But I do not see in any way where the Constitution guarantees it. Can someone go to the text of the constitution and show me where it says that killing an unborn child is allowable.
Thanks in advance.
9th ammendment pretty much covers all "Natural rights" not specifically covered in the previous 8.
The decision as to what goes on with your body would be considered a natural right
-
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I seriously hope you are not a loose constructionist.
Especially since you are losing this fight.
-
What fight? Ain't no "correct" party in this argument...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I seriously hope you are not a loose constructionist.
Especially since you are losing this fight.
Loosing this fight?
LMAO not even close
You read what it says. Now try researching it to see what it means and what types of cases have been argued under it.
"''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. "
"In recent times, however, it has been argued that the Ninth Amendment, particularly when read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment, emphasizes that the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights from the government to the people, but rather a mere enumeration of some of the most important powers not granted by the people to the government. The Ninth Amendment, it is argued, recognizes that such natural rights are retained by the people and cannot be abridged by the government."
-
Originally posted by texace
What fight? Ain't no "correct" party in this argument...
I agree.
But even if it were a fight.
I still dont see myself as even close to being on the loosing end of it.
-
Oh I get it sandie.... you have no personal views on the subject... whatever is legal is fine with you?
first you don't trust government and now you trust em completely to make moral decisions about life and death for you?
Ok... let's take it from your new viewpoint. If it's legal it's fine with you... if the government decieded that all abortions were murder then that defenition would be fine with you? or not? who can tell. you villify the govenment when you want to hide from your morals and you praise it when it sheilds you from making a moral stance.
The law is made... or at least influenced by the people. you want the law to influence you.
six... let's say that there was a "morning after pill" and, let's further say that abortion was free and legal up till the 3rd or 4th month... now... if a woman carried a baby past that no matter what the reason.. tough... she isn't allowed to murder it... she can walk out of the hospital and leave it tho.
Let's also be fair and if that one in a billion thing happens that the mothers life is in danger from her child... let's say the law allows for the murder of the child to save the mother..
Now those are abortion laws I could live with.
And... if they were in... sandie would have no opinion on them.
lazs
-
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.
-
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
-
Lasz, do you believe that the government should legislate morality?
-
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
-
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.
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
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.
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.
-
“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.
-
How could law not be moral?
What else than moral should the basis for one's rights be?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
-
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
-
I'm not a member of any political party.
What exactly was your point again?
-
Based on morality huh? Well, then let's bring prohibition back
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
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.
We're just wishy washy cowards... or so I'm told.
-
let the woman decide.
There are too many damn people on this planet as it is. Save us another unwanted one.
If we colonize mars, then make her carry it.
Bozon
-
six.. holden explained it. It is not immoral to drink. It is immoral to drink till you can barely function and then get into a car and hurt someone.
I am not sure that it is immoral to destroy an embryo but I feel it is immoral to destroy a viable human being who is innocent and causing no threat to anyone.
to simply say that if you can't see it then it's not a human is wishy washy in the extreme. No no... that is just fat or a tumor... It doesn't look like a person to me....
cowardly? yeah... cowardly pretty much describes it.
If we are overcrowded and need to thin the population then we could start with the prisons. Legal firms could be thinned considerably as could polititions.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
six.. holden explained it. It is not immoral to drink. It is immoral to drink till you can barely function and then get into a car and hurt someone.
I am not sure that it is immoral to destroy an embryo but I feel it is immoral to destroy a viable human being who is innocent and causing no threat to anyone.
to simply say that if you can't see it then it's not a human is wishy washy in the extreme. No no... that is just fat or a tumor... It doesn't look like a person to me....
cowardly? yeah... cowardly pretty much describes it.
If we are overcrowded and need to thin the population then we could start with the prisons. Legal firms could be thinned considerably as could polititions.
lazs
Well, then we agree that the more you drink, the less morals you have?
There is a group here that, on one hand says that it is the murder of a fetus and it is wrong, then on the other hand says it is ok to murder a fetus in another situation. If you are going to argue that it is the murder of an innocent fetus, how can you say it is ok to murder a fetus in the same sentence? Talk about walking the fence huh?
As you state many times lazs, any partial ban leads to more bans. Like if you ban assault rifles, then they try to ban more and more guns til you can no longer choose to own a gun
-
six.. are you being intentionaly dense?
once you start drinking you can either drink respossibly or not. the way you act is the moral or imoral part of it. If you kill or injure someone I do not believe that drinking is a good excuse. millions of people drink every day in a very moral way.
On abortion... a fetus to me is the baby that can't survive outside the mothers womb... it is a viable human after that. It is not a "ban" to tell people that they can't kill innocent and viable human beings for no good reason.
get it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
On abortion... a fetus to me is the baby that can't survive outside the mothers womb... it is a viable human after that. It is not a "ban" to tell people that they can't kill innocent and viable human beings for no good reason.
get it?
lazs
I might be wrong, but I suspect that they don't call the procedure an abortion after the fetus is viable. At this point, I think it's a cesarean section.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
On abortion... a fetus to me is the baby that can't survive outside the mothers womb... it is a viable human after that. It is not a "ban" to tell people that they can't kill innocent and viable human beings for no good reason.
lazs
i believe the stats are something like 90% are preformed before the first 16 weeks, only 1% are after 20 weeks.
fetus viability starts around 24-28 weeks.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I might be wrong, but I suspect that they don't call the procedure an abortion after the fetus is viable. At this point, I think it's a cesarean section.
Ceasarian section is a surgical procedure opening the abdomen to give birth bypassing a natural vaginal birth.
Partial Birth Abortion is a procedure pretty much specific to late term pregnancy, in the secondand third trimesters after viability is achieved.
Viability is technology specific. A 24 week old fetus would not be viable without some extraordinary neo-natal care.
-
In other words, viability is not achieved during the 2nd Trimester.
AFAICT, there aren't any doctors that will perform a D&X on a viable, healthy fetus. Anyone have any facts to the contrary?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
six.. are you being intentionaly dense?
once you start drinking you can either drink respossibly or not. the way you act is the moral or imoral part of it. If you kill or injure someone I do not believe that drinking is a good excuse. millions of people drink every day in a very moral way.
But millions drink in an immoral way, and have immoral sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, leading to abortion. We need to stop all this immorality!!
-
No, 'we' as in government don't.
Yes, 'we' as in individuals need to take personal responsibility for our personal actions. If you present me with a moral dillema that affects my life, expect me to do something about it. I assure you I will neither wish or require any assistance from government in solving the issue of your responsibility for it..
-
six.... how do you drink in an immoral way other than to do it to the point that you cause problems for others and where do you get that sex is immoral? There is nothing immoral about sex between consenting sane adults in my book.
torque... if those numbers are true then I only have a problem with... what did you say? 1% of the abortions that are performed on viable human beings.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Viability is technology specific. A 24 week old fetus would not be viable without some extraordinary neo-natal care.
that is the legal heathen threshold iirc depending on your govt.
post natal care, a newborn's viability is achieved when it moves out and gets a job.
-
the girls who throw their newborns in the dumpster are proving that the little parasite couldn't survive on it's own and.... exercising their right to choose.
lazs
-
Nice straw man.
Many states have laws that allow a woman to freely and legally abandon their newborn children at certain designated areas. Anyone that puts one in a dumpster probably isn't quite right in the head.
-
I'm already smacking myself in the head for even thinking of wading into this discussion, especially at such an advanced stage. I'll forgo the desire to post the 3D images of our last child sucking his thumb in the womb (man he's cute and relatively well behaved back then) and begin by posing a question based on the originally connected subjects: "Abortion and the Death Penalty."
Under the Death Penalty, someone found guilty of unlawfully taking human life is punished by forfeiting their own. Regardless of whether you think the punishment is just, the person is suffering the consequences of their own premeditated actions.
However, in an abortion, a person who has never committed any crime is forced to forfeit their life. They are executed without trial or any possiblity of appeal. The only crime they have committed is to live, when others did not wish them to.
Now, how is that just? Since when is the best answer to a "problem" to punish the only truly innocent party in the matter?
- SEAGOON
-
No problems with then ending abortions,
IF they can force a pregnancy at any tine that the girl wants,
If the pro life advocates want to spend millions on saving, very very premature fetuses then they can do at it,
I feel that the women should have the option to abort or let the doctors take it out of her how ever they want to, But it should be completely there choice..
At the most maybe add a 3 day waiting time like guns, to keep rash decision from cropping up.
pro life people claim that is it life at conceptopn, then it should be able to live with out her,
If it has to depend on the women for life, if it is inside or outside then itg is still not a compleate life yet..
if it can be taken out, and live, then that could me another option for them.
-
I'm not a member of any political party.--Sandman
I'm not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat .--Will Rogers
-
That's funny Holden, but we can't really compare the democratic party today to the dem party that Rogers knew. Reagan changed the political landscape. By today's standards, Nixon would be a democrat.
-
Please... I was noting the Iambic Pentameter and the synergy of the Chaucerian like couplet and the enjambment of the two phrases.
No political intent at all.
-
LOL... so noted sir.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
torque... if those numbers are true then I only have a problem with... what did you say? 1% of the abortions that are performed on viable human beings.
lazs
viable after 28 weeks, it's probably as low as .1%-.3%.
you're getting all worked up over a rather minute percentage, as those who use infant deaths related to firearms as an argument for gun control.
seagoon...what trimester do they become sinners?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
That's funny Holden, but we can't really compare the democratic party today to the dem party that Rogers knew. Reagan changed the political landscape. By today's standards, Nixon would be a democrat.
No, LBJ is the one who changed the political landscape, what with all that equal rights, and great society stuff, todays red states jumped ship like rats
-
Originally posted by Booz
No, LBJ is the one who changed the political landscape, what with all that equal rights, and great society stuff, todays red states jumped ship like rats
Go take another look at Nixon presidency. If he were the president today, the GOP would be livid.
-
From Gunslinger:
Some how prisoners lose their constitutional right to vote among other things while in prison but still have the right to an abortion.
This is incorrect. Prisoners are not allowed abortions. In fact, there is a case pending now that a woman is suing to have one. The problem the judge is facing is that abortions are NOT paid for by the people, therefore they cannot allow it, since all medical service to a prisoner are paid for by the people. In addition to this, she would need a guarded excort, which is also paid for by the people.
So those that think you are paying for aborthons, wrong.
In another perspective, the newly appointed Supreme Court justice,wants to have the husband be notified of an impending abortion. This many are agains, however, if a guy wants to get his nutz snipped, he neesd to bring the wife in to sign her approval on the medical documents.
There ya have it, that the truth.
"Theyre eroding our freedoms!"
Jenisis P Oridge
-
torque... I am not at all worked up about it.. but I do have an opinion.
comparing the purposeful killing of an innocent by society to the criminal or accidental death of children (who may or may not be innocent) is ludicrous tho.
lazs
-
Interesting that righties want to invade a womens privacy to control her body and what is in it but at the same time support killing someone.
-
interesting that lefties advocate killing innocent children if the child in the least inconvienences the maternal parent but are against the putting down of vicious murderers to prevent them from preying on society.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Go take another look at Nixon presidency. If he were the president today, the GOP would be livid.
Nixon and JFK could probably switch parties in today's spectrum. JFK cut taxes and had an interventionist foreign policy. Nixon grew government and the EPA and the endangered species act came under his watch.
Although it was congress that passed all the laws. Congress is the first among equals in our three branches.
-
Ok, trying to answer two different threads...
First "viability" has never been an adequate definition of personhood. The definition is entirely arbitrary and effectively strips premies who require intense medical assistance in order to survive of "personhood". They are not non-persons who become persons through successful medical treatment. It also has nasty implications for other related issues, if someone who cannot survive by themselves is a non-person then in all liklihood some of your relatives will lose their personhood, and therefore the implied right to continue to live, prior, to their death.
In any event, this is ultimately semantics, what we as a society are searching for is an excuse for doing what we want, namely to vest the right to decide whether a child lives or dies in the whims of their mother. However, because we still have a few remaining scruples, we also want to reserve the right to pick an arbitrary point at which the mother no longer has a right to take the life of her offspring. But practical experience indicates that pro-abortion groups object to any attempt to implement such a impediment on their ability to legally take a life. This was evident from the fight over partial birth abortions.
Ultimately the issue terminates in your view of the origin of life. If we are just the result of what evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker called the "primate assembly process" then any notion of "rights" is illusory from the beginning since there is no possible source for a right. We are simply organisms created by time and chance. What we really have is abilities. We are able to do some things and not able to do others because of constraints either physical or legal. Legal constraints in such a system would be based on preference. Those in power currently prefer the right to kill our inconvenient offspring, and since those offspring are simply organisms not essentially different from any other - brief blips of life in the continuum of death - then why shouldn't we do so? For that matter why shouldn't we end any life that has become inconvenient or too expensive? We have the power to do so, and ultimately power combined with preference are all that matter. We can create pragmatic arguments to make ourselves feel better later on.
If on the other hand, man is not just the result of time and chance but a being created in the image of God, and if He alone is the source not only of Right and Wrong, then we should not end a life on any grounds except for those He has established.
Finally Torque, I don't sense you asked the question seriously, but the biblical teaching on the matter is that we are conceived in a fallen and sinful condition (Psalm 51:5 or Eph. 2:1-7) and therefore the answer is from the very beginning, we have a fallen nature and an inclination towards sin. However, that condition doesn't mean that we have a right to put anyone to death before they have committed a crime worthy of that sentance. Quite the opposite, we have a duty to preserve life, especially at its most vulnerable.
To quote John Calvin on the subject: "the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light."
- SEAGOON
-
1st off let me state I support both the death penalty and a womans right to choose an abortion.
To any logical thinking person it is obvious. The world is already suffering from over-population. Certainly the world COULD sustain more people comfortably, yet somehow we seem to consistently fail to plan appropriately. As one of my favorite songs says "the masses of humanity will always have to suffer". If you agree that, if not now, at least eventually, we will need some sort of population controls in place, abortion and the death penalty are the two most logical ways to control the worlds population.
If you don't agree then no logical arguement will sway you and it is your type who will likely doom the masses to a life of suffering.
Is a life of suffering still a life worth living? And I don't mean homeless in the US suffering, I mean starving, diseased and un-loved and un-cared for. Truly suffering, the likes of which most of us can't even concieve of.
Think about it...
g00b
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
If we are just the result of what evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker called the "primate assembly process" then any notion of "rights" is illusory from...
Last time I bought a Chimpanzee, it came preassembled.
-
So Goob, let me get this straight.
You think it's ok to kill an innocent child because the world is overpopulated?
-
I don't consider a fetus to be a "child". It is a fetus, hence the name. If it was a child or a baby, people would call it such. I would kill a fetus to save an innocent child from a life of inconcievable agony and suffering, yes. It is an act of mercy.
You would condemn a child to such horrible conditions as exist in many of the 3rd world countries? The kind of places where over 20,000 children die EVERY DAY from starvation and disease. Please answer this question, I'm very curious...
What do you think it would be like in China right now if they didn't have mandatory abortions?
My general philosophy is less people with a higher quality of life is preferable to more people with a lower quality of life. They are directly related.
g00b
-
Ooh, it's still going. So have we come to a unanimous decision on this one yet?
-
Originally posted by g00b
I don't consider a fetus to be a "child". It is a fetus, hence the name. If it was a child or a baby, people would call it such. I would kill a fetus to save an innocent child from a life of inconcievable agony and suffering, yes. It is an act of mercy.
You would condemn a child to such horrible conditions as exist in many of the 3rd world countries? The kind of places where over 20,000 children die EVERY DAY from starvation and disease. Please answer this question, I'm very curious...
What do you think it would be like in China right now if they didn't have mandatory abortions?
My general philosophy is less people with a higher quality of life is preferable to more people with a lower quality of life. They are directly related.
g00b
First, I support abortion rights.
However what you said in this post outrageus and that kind of thinking has led to forced abortions nad mass sterelizations of real people whoose lives, and their childrens lives were deemend unworthy of living for whatever reason.
-
Originally posted by g00b
I don't consider a fetus to be a "child". It is a fetus, hence the name. If it was a child or a baby, people would call it such. I would kill a fetus to save an innocent child from a life of inconcievable agony and suffering, yes. It is an act of mercy.
You would condemn a child to such horrible conditions as exist in many of the 3rd world countries? The kind of places where over 20,000 children die EVERY DAY from starvation and disease. Please answer this question, I'm very curious...
What do you think it would be like in China right now if they didn't have mandatory abortions?
My general philosophy is less people with a higher quality of life is preferable to more people with a lower quality of life. They are directly related.
g00b
So your for concentration camps of useless people being eliminated and for unlimited abortions? (cause thats the only way the death penalty could be used as population controll)
All for population control?
Are we doing this in just third world countries that can't support new people or everyone?
-
Duh, talk about over-reaction. I simply support peoples right to choose for themselves. No government intervention. For now. But to stick your head in the sand about the over-population issue is just.... nevermind... Why did I stick my nose in this thread? Sorry, I'll just be on my way...
-
Originally posted by SOB
Ooh, it's still going. So have we come to a unanimous decision on this one yet?
No unanimous position. All people have the choice to agree with me or be wrong. It is a matter of free will.
-
Originally posted by g00b
Duh, talk about over-reaction. I simply support peoples right to choose for themselves. No government intervention. For now. But to stick your head in the sand about the over-population issue is just.... nevermind... Why did I stick my nose in this thread? Sorry, I'll just be on my way...
Hey your the one who said the death penalty would be a great form of population controll.
Now you act like we are the wackos?
Try giving a reasonable way that could work.
I am pro choice as well, just not pro death camp.
Nice of you to stop by and post your opinion, to bad you can't back it up when someone questions it.
-
I guess that by torques figures that I am not really pro life or pro abortion... according to him I would only limit about 1% or so of abortions..
This figure seems low but so be it. If the child is not a viable human then I say that the mother should be able to choose.
On another note tho...You can't live 5 plus decades without having personal experiance with the whole thing..
In my case it is at least 7 or 8 women (who have admitted to abortions). in every case... the procedure left a mental scar.
it is not some little wart removal in a womans mind no matter how much we men would like to think so to assage our guilt. It should not be stepped into lightly. Anyone who says that it is like removing a parasite is devoid of any real human empathy. Any woman who feels that way is probly less than human. It is a serious matter.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it is not some little wart removal in a womans mind no matter how much we men would like to think so to assage our guilt. It should not be stepped into lightly. Anyone who says that it is like removing a parasite is devoid of any real human empathy. Any woman who feels that way is probly less than human. It is a serious matter.
lazs
I agree.
What reasons should a woman consider before aborting? What are the top ten reasons sighted by women for having an abortion? I'm curious, but I'd bet that the top reasons are because they would be too inconvenienced by the whole baby thing.
After a woman has had one abortion, why should she be able to have more abortions? Didn't she already decide that she doesn't want to have a baby the first time?
Or maybe it's more like she should be able to abort all of her "mistakes" at all times. That's her right.