The Great Abortion Compromise!

[MissileMan]

Who says they would be state run? If we can allow widescale post natal adoption then why can we not allow the same regulation for zygotes? Would this not offer a greater screening period and greater preperation time for the future parents?

give and take, take and give.

Even if privately-run, the world's population growth is high enough without adding to it. Some fetuses aren't meant to be born.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

You mean take and take....

-banned abortions on ALL zygotes/feti that have formed human characteristics

"Feti"?

I'm talking to a pro-choicer, I'm talking to a pro-choicer, when do ALL zygotes/feti have formed human characteristics in your opinion? Ten weeks? Twenty? At conception? At birth?

-severe penalties for those who break this regulation

That's an ignored law already on the books, toothless.

-a DRASTIC decrease in the rate of pregnancy terminations

Sounds like "safe, legal, and rare" there, Bill.

Id be getting

-all necessary education regarding procreation

Translation: sex-ed in schools, free condoms. It's school reform we need, silly!

-all available methods of pre inception birth control methods and the morning after pill

Abortion on demand IS birth control. More code.

-a federal amendment that clarifies the constitutional right to privacy in order to clear up RvW

In other words, a federal amendment for abortion on demand, good luck with THAT, heh.

what if technology were developed that could incubate unwanted zygotes? would that change your position at all?

It's a Brave New World, after all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you said it yourself. TIMES CHANGE. your political affiliation wasnt always coming from the direction that you stand right now. Times do change. You dont exhist in a vacuum and your opinion does not conquer everything else on the rule of a single vote. what can be done can be undone. such is your hope with RvW. such is the evidence of prohibition. Again, you may find yourself winning today.. but it wont last. nothing does.

Thank you for proving my point regarding the necessity for consideration. Your actions are speaking louder than your words.

I hope you read a good book on our founding fathers and come to understand what they meant when using the word liberty. Ben Franklin was always my favorite.. Might I suggest, The Americanization of Ben Franklin by Gordon Wood?

http://www.amazon.com/Americanization-Benjamin-Franklin-Gordon-Wood/dp/B000BNPGCI/sr=8-5/qid=1160604181/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-5287081-4700941?ie=UTF8&s=books

Your post is full of generalizations that mean virtually nothing. If nothing will last, then why do you wish for a compromise? A compromise won't last either, will it?

I'm sure Ben Franklin was your favorite....after all, he was quite Europeanized and a big celebrity in France - while not celebrated in America during his time. It was his Almanac that finally gained him recognition over the years.

You have already demonstrated many characteristics consistent with an anti-Christian liberal. Your tactics are a bit unique however compared to the average liberal. However your persistent and imperious protest against my voicing an opinion on this thread only solidify my suspicion that you are most likely a died-in-the-wool Marxist or at least a wannabe.

youd be getting

-banned abortions on ALL zygotes/feti that have formed human characteristics
-severe penalties for those who break this regulation
-a DRASTIC decrease in the rate of pregnancy terminations


Id be getting

-all necessary education regarding procreation
-all available methods of pre inception birth control methods and the morning after pill
-a federal amendment that clarifies the constitutional right to privacy in order to clear up RvW

ps, what if technology were developed that could incubate unwanted zygotes? would that change your position at all?

What kind of education?

What constitutional "right to privacy"?

You're probably OK with embryonic stem cell research, right? How about the sale of baby body parts?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The life of the FLESH is in the blood. But when does the SOUL enter? And it would be very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment that blood was formed. It's a process.

15 to 21 days after conception is what was taught in Biology my freshmen year. I'll see if I can find the lab manual so I can scan it and cite it. No, I don't have a link. I get what you are saying though and it takes the debate back to science vs. faith.

 

[Gem]

I get what you are saying though and it takes the debate back to science vs. faith.

And I think this is what it ultimately comes down to.

You probably will not convince someone who feels that at the moment of conception a new person has been created and that it is our job as fully developed people to protect and care for that developing person that killing that fetus early enough isn't killing a developing person.

You probably won't convince someone who feels that a fetus is not a person until it can live outside its mother that stopping a fully developed woman from being able to decide whether or not she should have to deal with a pregnancy she did not want.

I think what Shogun is stating, and what I agree with wholeheartedly, is that if the sides in the debate are as inflexible as they seem...then can't we - as intelligent people here to debate and discuss - say "Ok...we may never agree....but for the sanity, safety, and sake of this nation, lets discuss possibilities of a middle ground that will come as close to appeasing BOTH parties as possible - admitting that we will not be able to completely please both parties.

 

[dilloduck]

And I think this is what it ultimately comes down to.

You probably will not convince someone who feels that at the moment of conception a new person has been created and that it is our job as fully developed people to protect and care for that developing person that killing that fetus early enough isn't killing a developing person.

You probably won't convince someone who feels that a fetus is not a person until it can live outside its mother that stopping a fully developed woman from being able to decide whether or not she should have to deal with a pregnancy she did not want.

I think what Shogun is stating, and what I agree with wholeheartedly, is that if the sides in the debate are as inflexible as they seem...then can't we - as intelligent people here to debate and discuss - say "Ok...we may never agree....but for the sanity, safety, and sake of this nation, lets discuss possibilities of a middle ground that will come as close to appeasing BOTH parties as possible - admitting that we will not be able to completely please both parties.

I really believe that we have come to the end of the line on compromises. Everyone has conceded so much that they are cornered until a higher order freedom or cause will make issues like these secondary.

 

[-Kt Atis-]

And I think this is what it ultimately comes down to.

You probably will not convince someone who feels that at the moment of conception a new person has been created and that it is our job as fully developed people to protect and care for that developing person that killing that fetus early enough isn't killing a developing person.

You probably won't convince someone who feels that a fetus is not a person until it can live outside its mother that stopping a fully developed woman from being able to decide whether or not she should have to deal with a pregnancy she did not want.

I think what Shogun is stating, and what I agree with wholeheartedly, is that if the sides in the debate are as inflexible as they seem...then can't we - as intelligent people here to debate and discuss - say "Ok...we may never agree....but for the sanity, safety, and sake of this nation, lets discuss possibilities of a middle ground that will come as close to appeasing BOTH parties as possible - admitting that we will not be able to completely please both parties.

In other words you're saying "Let's agree to disagree." Am I right?

 

[Gem]

Kt Atis Wrote:

In other words you're saying "Let's agree to disagree." Am I right?

With all respect...no, you're off a bit.

What I'm trying to say - and what I think the original poster is trying to say - is that this is an issue in which we might not ever be able to agree completely, or at all...

However....

Is there a way that the two sides can calmly and effectively find a compromise that, while pleasing no one entirely, is the most logical combonation of the opinions held by those two sides?


As I said before - I don't think you will ever convince someone who believes that the morning-after-pill is murder that it should be legal...however you might be able to say "You're right - we can't appease you on this issue...however the morning-after-pill is greatly preferable towards 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions...so can we start a discussion there?"

You might not be able to convince a woman who is terrified to give up the right to decide whether or not she will carry a pregnancy from a broken condom to term altogether....but you might be able to convince her that the morning after pill or an abortion within the first few weeks is greatly preferable to waiting until that fetus has a heartbeat, eyes, a spinal cord, etc. So can we start a discussion there?

I know some might claim that this issue is not as important as others facing our nation - however I disagree. Legalized abortion altered our society hugely and unchangably. Millions of potential people are not living, and the way our society views dating, relationships, sex, marriage, obligation, respect, privacy, womans rights, mens rights, sex education, low-income familes, etc. etc. have all been affected by it. I do think its a relevant discussion to have - and I think that it only becomes irrelevant when we say "my mind is made up and it will not be changed" rather than "I do not think that my mind can be changed...but I will listen to you with an open heart and mind because I want to fully understand your opinion."

 

[-Kt Atis-]

Kt Atis Wrote:


With all respect...no, you're off a bit.

What I'm trying to say - and what I think the original poster is trying to say - is that this is an issue in which we might not ever be able to agree completely, or at all...

However....

Is there a way that the two sides can calmly and effectively find a compromise that, while pleasing no one entirely, is the most logical combonation of the opinions held by those two sides?


As I said before - I don't think you will ever convince someone who believes that the morning-after-pill is murder that it should be legal...however you might be able to say "You're right - we can't appease you on this issue...however the morning-after-pill is greatly preferable towards 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions...so can we start a discussion there?"

You might not be able to convince a woman who is terrified to give up the right to decide whether or not she will carry a pregnancy from a broken condom to term altogether....but you might be able to convince her that the morning after pill or an abortion within the first few weeks is greatly preferable to waiting until that fetus has a heartbeat, eyes, a spinal cord, etc. So can we start a discussion there?

I know some might claim that this issue is not as important as others facing our nation - however I disagree. Legalized abortion altered our society hugely and unchangably. Millions of potential people are not living, and the way our society views dating, relationships, sex, marriage, obligation, respect, privacy, womans rights, mens rights, sex education, low-income familes, etc. etc. have all been affected by it. I do think its a relevant discussion to have - and I think that it only becomes irrelevant when we say "my mind is made up and it will not be changed" rather than "I do not think that my mind can be changed...but I will listen to you with an open heart and mind because I want to fully understand your opinion."

Nice, nice. I understand now. You're aginst abortions. Well in this case the theme here will be 'risk.' The risk women take wheater or not to have sex. If a woman decides to have sex then common sense tells her that she has a chance to get pregnaut much less STD's. Anyway a woman do have the right to do what she wants. I mean didn't women complain about voting in the early 20th century? They wanted rights, and they got them. Women should have the right to choose on wheater or not if they want an abortion. Once a woman gets what she wants, she just wants more and more. Am I right fellas? Well anyway if America was over populated how would you handle the situation of abortion?

 

[Bonnie]

Weclome Shogun. I appreciated your argument, except for this part:



The existence (or non-existence) of a soul is of paramount importance in the abortion matter. If a baby gets a soul at conception, then aborting a baby between conception and heart formation (as you advocated) means that you've killed a human with a soul. Therefore, I don't think you can separate physical growth or organ formation from the existence of a soul.

That really is it Jeff!!

The real debate is not whether women will still get abortions if it's illegal or not, the question is, does government continue to sanction such a hideous act because the abortion lobby has become so well funded from abortion itself, that they in turn fund a lot of liberal/socialist candidtates who likewise keep endorsing/supporting abortion, and, other feminist agendas... and so the cycle just keeps going round and round......And all due to a few misguided justices equating murder with a womans right to privacy with her doctor, based on a rape that never happened...

 

[Gunny]

That really is it Jeff!!

The real debate is not whether women will still get abortions if it's illegal or not, the question is, does government continue to sanction such a hideous act because the abortion lobby has become so well funded from abortion itself, that they in turn fund a lot of liberal/socialist candidtates who likewise keep endorsing/supporting abortion, and, other feminist agendas... and so the cycle just keeps going round and round......And all due to a few misguided justices equating murder with a womans right to privacy with her doctor, based on a rape that never happened...

The editor of "Ms" magazine was on O'Reilly last night. She refused to budge from her position that any women existed who had abortions who did not need them. O'Reilly kept after her but she deflected every time.

Having had the debate with a few people in the past who thought the same way, I'd have to say that is the mentality to deal with. That's besides the wannabe scientific geeks who want to dehumanize and unborn human being.

It's like most other arguments from the left .... they try to convince us that something is not what it is to suit some dishonorable and dishonest agenda.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think you will find that trying to police a thread so that only people who meet your criteria for posting are acceptable is nigh impossible.

Unless you're a mod..:cof:

 

[Dr Grump]

However, if the Far Left forces continue to be a force in this country the abortion issue will probably continue to exist. The Far Left ideology supports the "politics of death".

The Far Right has been running the country for the best part of 6 years. When are you going to start putting the blame where it is due. As for the Far Left being the supporters of politics of death, who took the US into Iraq? Which party traditionally supports the DP?

 

[Gunny]

The Far Right has been running the country for the best part of 6 years. When are you going to start putting the blame where it is due. As for the Far Left being the supporters of politics of death, who took the US into Iraq? Which party traditionally supports the DP?

The far right hasn't been running jack. Problem with you lefties is because you have few to no moderates left, you think no one else does. As any of the far-right conservatives on this board ..... they think Bush is too liberal.

 

[Bonnie]

The far right hasn't been running jack. Problem with you lefties is because you have few to no moderates left, you think no one else does. As any of the far-right conservatives on this board ..... they think Bush is too liberal.

And again the doctor proves that liberals think killing murderous inmates and terrorists is wrong but innocent babies..hey no problemo..

 

[Dr Grump]

The far right hasn't been running jack. Problem with you lefties is because you have few to no moderates left, you think no one else does. As any of the far-right conservatives on this board ..... they think Bush is too liberal.

I've never voted for the Dems in my life...so out goes that theory. Bush too liberal???? RATFLMAO! Wolfowitz et al too liberal? Double RATFLMAO...

 

[Dr Grump]

And again the doctor proves that liberals think killing murderous inmates and terrorists is wrong but innocent babies..hey no problemo..

I'm for the DP (under certain circumstances) and against abortion. There goes that theory...I'm just not that passionate about either issue...

 

[Gunny]

And again the doctor proves that liberals think killing murderous inmates and terrorists is wrong but innocent babies..hey no problemo..

He's just another left-wing extremist. I doubt he is knowledgable on half the topics he comments on. He just sees what the conservatives are posting and takes the opposite stance, throwing in a Bush bash here and there for good measure.

Murderers and terrorist are guilty of crimes that IMO earn one the right to forfeit their lives. No one made them do it.

Aborted unborn children don't have that opportunity .... nor any other, ever.

 

[Gunny]

I've never voted for the Dems in my life...so out goes that theory. Bush too liberal???? RATFLMAO! Wolfowitz et al too liberal? Double RATFLMAO...

I hate to break this to you, but Bush is pretty moderate on most issues. He could NEVER have been Governor here for two consecutive terms if he was not. Too moderate for more than a few conservatives.

But you can't see that because you have that anything right of you is far-right mentality. You just don't see how far to the LEFT you are.

 

[Gunny]

I'm for the DP (under certain circumstances) and against abortion. There goes that theory...I'm just not that passionate about either issue...

So you admit you're just trolling the thread .....:rotflmao: