Abortion Bullshit...

[g5000]

Dear G: And what if the way to prevent abortion is not by approaching it this way you describe? What if the way to prevent it is to prevent ALL forms of relationship abuse
and coersion, to provide nonjudgmental social support for women and children,
and also teaching men and boys to take responsibility instead of dumping this on women?

Wouldn't it be our social responsibility to prevent all causes of abortion on all levels?

Absolutely, and this is exactly where I am coming from.

But for this to happen, a lot of misunderstandings need to first be removed.

I think you are assuming that imposing a choice on someone is a better way to enforce a principle than educating people on what is the reality in rape and abortion cases, and teaching people to prevent all causes in advance before they ever get to that point.

If you look at all the Prolife people, can you name ONE that requires abortion to be illegal or banned "by law" in order to know it should be prevented at all costs?

I find people are more truly convicted in their beliefs if they have freedom to arrive at their beliefs themselves, by their own reasoning and free will.

I do have a moral obligation to make sure people have "fully informed" and correct information when they make their choices, but not to "depend on" imposing this by law, especially where the decisions to prevent abuses of relations and of sex take place long before the point of pregnancy. Preventing abuses on all levels requires full respect for free choice. If consensus can be formed on that level, not by imposition but fully informed consent, then legislation would not be a battle, but would follow naturally.

The fact we have such unresolved points, means we haven't finished all the groundwork to build legislation on a solid foundation; so bullying or imposing one view over another is not going to change that, but make communication more difficult. There are no shortcuts. We need to isolate and resolve each point, and write better legislative agreements that we can all agree across the board address and prevent the problems without introducing more.

As a pro-lifer, I believe abortion is the taking of a human life and it should be against the law just as killing your parents is against the law.

So before we get to the penalty phase of the discussion, this one point must be crystal clear. Coming from the point of view that killing your unborn child is the same as killing your parents means I come from the point of view that all abortions are my business.

At the same time, I believe we should exert all possible means to prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. I am real big on prevention.

This is why I constantly bring up the issue of the proper and consistent use of birth control as a key element to bringing down the number of abortions. If there is no uninteneded pregnancy, there is no abortion. If there is no abortion, there is no taking of a human life.

I'm not the kind of person who stomps my feet about "abortion is murder" and does not progress the conversation beyond that point.

There is too much concentrating on being right, and not enough effort put into getting actual results that work.

So...birth control is a key element. From that point, the debate can center around how to achieve that. Education, accessibility, who pays for it, etc.

I believe if we get proper and consistent use of birth control, the number of abortions can be cut in half.

That's better than the minimal reductions we have seen since Roe v. Wade while everyone has been fighting over who is right and getting nowhere.

When abortions are cut in half, they become more socially unacceptable, which leads to even less abortions.

Win/win for everyone.

.

 

[Mr Natural]

Dont like abortions?

Dont have one.

Problem solved.

 

[g5000]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

Fact: life beginning at conception is a biological and scientific fact.

Fact: no one expects the public-school dunderheads on the left to know jack about science, despite their professed love of it.

The word "life" in the sentence "life begins at conception" has a lot of equivocation to it.

Technically, yes, life begins at conception. But is the destruction of that life morally wrong? It does not feel. It does not think. It is a potentially thinking, feeling entity which, if it survives, one day everyone will agree is undeniably a human life which is entitled to human rights. But is it entitled to human rights from the moment of conception?

THAT is not a scientific question at all.

A puppy is life at the moment of conception, too. Scientific fact. But no one would outlaw aborting a puppy embryo.

Well, maybe PETA...


.

 

[g5000]

Dont like abortions?

Dont have one.

Problem solved.

Don't like murders?

Don't commit one.

Problem solved.


See how ridiculous that sounds? That attitude would not stop murders, nor will it stop abortions. So that argument only works for murderers and pro-choicers.



.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

LOL....life does begin at conception you moron.

but when does personhood?

who gives a shit? this is about facts, not fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional buzzwords you've created because the science is against you. who told you that you get to redefine the priorities and parameters of the debate?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The logical facts..

1) a human life begins at conception.

2) if Roe v Wade is overturned it reverts back to the each individual State's jurisdiction.

3) the odds of certain States (liberal utopias) outlawing abortion is nil, zero, not an F'ing chance.

4) The odds of back alley abortions, coat hanger abortions, whatever, is no greater with or without Roe v Wade

The reality..

Democrats only use the issue as a political tool to scare women/men into voting Democrat.

Unsurprisingly ignorant.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) is the current case law on the issue, not Roe. Casey would need to be overturned.

And the issue isn’t about abortion, it’s about privacy rights, substantive due process, and the importance of limiting the state’s ability to interfere with individual liberty.

Pull down the Griswold/Roe/Casey edifice and the state is given unbridled authority to dictate to a citizen every aspect of his personal life.

Which is indeed the goal of conservatives.

 

[Steelplate]

Stop making a moral issue into a legislative one and guess what? the problem goes away.

Look, as a Christian....I am anti-abortion. If I were female, I'd never have one. I'd raise my stepdaughter's child(if she were pregnant) if it were an option between that, and her getting an abortion.

However.....legislatively and legally....it should be a private matter between....the person having the abortion, the doctor, the father of the child and God.

I feel exactly the same about gay marriage....I'm against it at the personal/religious level.....but because we live in an allegedly free society.....it should be legalized in the manner of courthouse weddings and on a voluntary basis when it comes to churches....just don't expect me to be a member of a church that allows it.

Bottom line.....sin is sin.....we all sin....God doesn't differentiate like we do....furthermore, we don't have the ability to see what inside another's heart. Let the judging to God....we aren't worthy.

Murder is a moral issue which we have made a legislative one. Should we make it "go away" and leave it as a "private matter" between the murderer and their victim?

That is the logic you are using, and it completely collapses if you believe killing a fetus in the womb is murdering a human being.

If abortion is not the extinguishing of a human life, why are you personally opposed to it?


.

Yes, but since there is great debate over the issue of personhood and when it begins...I say let the judging up to God. There is no guilt by association here. If you abort a fetus, when you yourself die....you will be judged on that sin.

We know a living breathing person is a person with an inalienable right to life. There is great debate on the unborn....scientifically, religiously, emotionally and intellectually.

It should be a personal decision....to make it a legal one is to legislate the beliefs of another person.

Why am I against it? For probably the same reason you are....you take an authoritarian view on it, I take a libertarian view.

That being said....I think there needs to be a National discourse on the limits on abortion. I'm very much in favor of limiting it to the first trimester on a National level.

 

[lukelk]

1) a human life begins at conception.-------this is a question on ones personal belief. I do not feel this way, since I know you a republican, can you tell me this, why should I want to the government to tell me how to think and what to believe?

2) if Roe v Wade is overturned it reverts back to the each individual State's jurisdiction...... a womans RIGHT to choose, is constituional and its a RIGHT, just like your RIGHT to bear arms, or vote. once again WHY as a republican do you want the government to tell you what to do. can ALL rights be on the table now? so I can pick and choose what I want to follow or not?

3) the odds of certain States (liberal utopias) outlawing abortion is nil, zero, not an F'ing chance.......GOOD THING its not a REFERENDUM, ITS A RIGHT.

4) The odds of back alley abortions, coat hanger abortions, whatever, is no greater with or without Roe v Wade.......ACTUALLY you are about as wrong as you can get, where do you come up with this BS? all you have to do is LOOK at stats not just from the united states but from a lot of other countries, and when you do, you will find out that you are wrong.

Now to the main point. first off as a republican you will say that your right to:speech,bear arms ect.... are not to be touched, well this is a right women have fought hard for. Also it works like this, when a country is prolife, they MUST be restricted and have to follow a LAW that they a.dont agree with. b. might have a religous belief against. c.might be in a situation where their life hangs in the balance.
OR a NON SECULAR gov. that is pro choice, allows the WOMAN to choose, if you want to be pro file, then be it. if you DONT want to be, then dont. So the next time I hear a republican say " I dont want the gov. to tell me what to do" on this tread I am just going to write BULLSHIT

 

[emilynghiem]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

Fact: life beginning at conception is a biological and scientific fact.

Fact: no one expects the public-school dunderheads on the left to know jack about science, despite their professed love of it.

Laws are based on the consent of people.
If you want to include the consent of the unborn, that is included in your consent when you participate in decisions regarding legislation or other programs for preventing abortion.

So if we had laws based on consent, then this would automatically be included
and would not require convincing anyone else of your viewpoint in order to be valid.

From my experience, I believe we will have more success forming agreements that protect the rights of the unborn by going by the CONSENT of people with prolife views, rather than arguing about the views per se.

Again, I point out that you having your current views and information do NOT depend on legislation telling you to have these views. So why not let other people arrive at the same conclusions you do instead of compelling it by law, when you yourself do not require it!

 

[Cecilie1200]

i'm not the one who keeps posting hack threads insulting most of the country, creeper...

so you might want to re-evaluate.

and you'd have to matter for me to hate you. hate isn't my thing-- unlike you.

.. bullshit... why don't you try responding to the points in the OP rather than the immediate person attack?

So you don't like me personally, big deal, I can live with that...

no...you're a creeper...

there isn't anything to respond to. *shrug*

then why come to the thread at all? to tell us all how you're above addressing the topic? trust me, no one cares.

 

[Steelplate]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

bullshit....who says you get to make the rules on this? Is it the extinguishing of a human life? yes. Is it murder? Not sure....are you?

There's actually a scripture in the Old Testament that says something to the effect of.....

If two men struggle and hits a woman with child, causing her to miscarry, but no further harm to the woman is done...the man at fault will pay the husband a fee to be negotiated......however, if the man were to also harm the woman, then the standard punishment of an eye for an eye, life for a life is applicable.

It's not exact....but it's very close.

That leads me to believe that an unborn child is not necessarily a person yet....or at least doesn't hold equal value as a living, breathing one.

 

[lukelk]

there is no coherence to the argument "i believe abortion is wrong but i would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "i would not kill my teenaged daughter, but i have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

bullshit....who says you get to make the rules on this? Is it the extinguishing of a human life? Yes. Is it murder? Not sure....are you?

There's actually a scripture in the old testament that says something to the effect of.....

If two men struggle and hits a woman with child, causing her to miscarry, but no further harm to the woman is done...the man at fault will pay the husband a fee to be negotiated......however, if the man were to also harm the woman, then the standard punishment of an eye for an eye, life for a life is applicable.

It's not exact....but it's very close.

That leads me to believe that an unborn child is not necessarily a person yet....or at least doesn't hold equal value as a living, breathing one.

like i promised...................bullshit bullshit bullshit

 

[g5000]

Stop making a moral issue into a legislative one and guess what? the problem goes away.

Look, as a Christian....I am anti-abortion. If I were female, I'd never have one. I'd raise my stepdaughter's child(if she were pregnant) if it were an option between that, and her getting an abortion.

However.....legislatively and legally....it should be a private matter between....the person having the abortion, the doctor, the father of the child and God.

I feel exactly the same about gay marriage....I'm against it at the personal/religious level.....but because we live in an allegedly free society.....it should be legalized in the manner of courthouse weddings and on a voluntary basis when it comes to churches....just don't expect me to be a member of a church that allows it.

Bottom line.....sin is sin.....we all sin....God doesn't differentiate like we do....furthermore, we don't have the ability to see what inside another's heart. Let the judging to God....we aren't worthy.

Murder is a moral issue which we have made a legislative one. Should we make it "go away" and leave it as a "private matter" between the murderer and their victim?

That is the logic you are using, and it completely collapses if you believe killing a fetus in the womb is murdering a human being.

If abortion is not the extinguishing of a human life, why are you personally opposed to it?


.

Yes, but since there is great debate over the issue of personhood and when it begins...I say let the judging up to God. There is no guilt by association here. If you abort a fetus, when you yourself die....you will be judged on that sin.

We know a living breathing person is a person with an inalienable right to life. There is great debate on the unborn....scientifically, religiously, emotionally and intellectually.

It should be a personal decision....to make it a legal one is to legislate the beliefs of another person.

Why am I against it? For probably the same reason you are....you take an authoritarian view on it, I take a libertarian view.

That being said....I think there needs to be a National discourse on the limits on abortion. I'm very much in favor of limiting it to the first trimester on a National level.

Why can't you articulate why you are against it?

I am against it because I believe it is the taking of a human life, little different than if you killed your parents. How could you take a "libertarian view" in such a case? Would you take a "libertarian view" toward people who wanted to off their parents so they could collect their inheritance sooner?

That makes no sense.

Perhaps it is more like gambling to you. So, for example, you would not go to a casino yourself, but would not want a law stopping others from going to a casino.

If that is closer to your point of view, then you are not opposed to abortion for the same reason I am, nor do you view it from the same place I do.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. I am just trying to understand where every possible viewpoint is coming from.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

Here you are comparing apples to oranges. One statement: "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others." and the other is "I believe abortion is murder and I would not stop others."

I believe that abortion is wrong, if used for birth control. I believe that it is wrong, but I'm not convinced it's murder. I would not ask a woman I got pregnant to have an abortion, and if asked my opinion on the matter, I would urge for giving the baby up for adoption rather than abortion. But I would not dream of forcing my beliefs on others.

out of curiosity, why do you think it's wrong?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

Medical fact is that life begins when heart and brain functions are both present. About 5-7 weeks gestation.

Are you fine with requiring judicial review for every abortion performed on a living human? You know, due process before we deprive them of life by detaching limbs?

 

[Uncensored2008]

creeper

Fraud


Standard Disclaimer: Gee, I guess mindless, one word posts can be fun...

 

[Amazed]

Steel sould know that his god tells him when "personhood" begins.

You really do like to pick and chosse what believe don't you?

 

[lukelk]

Steel sould know that his god tells him when "personhood" begins.

You really do like to pick and chosse what believe don't you?

Yes they do, and its BULLSHIT

 

[g5000]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

bullshit....who says you get to make the rules on this? Is it the extinguishing of a human life? yes. Is it murder? Not sure....are you?

There's actually a scripture in the Old Testament that says something to the effect of.....

If two men struggle and hits a woman with child, causing her to miscarry, but no further harm to the woman is done...the man at fault will pay the husband a fee to be negotiated......however, if the man were to also harm the woman, then the standard punishment of an eye for an eye, life for a life is applicable.

It's not exact....but it's very close.

That leads me to believe that an unborn child is not necessarily a person yet....or at least doesn't hold equal value as a living, breathing one.

Exodus 21:22. It says as long as the baby is born unharmed, the penalty is light.

Regardless, you are conflating the penalty with the actual crime. Clearly doing harm to the unborn child is a crime in the Law you are citing. The issue is then how great the penalty is to be. But the fact is that the harming of the unborn is in itself a crime and forbidden. It is saying plainly that you cannot go around hitting pregnant women.





.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i'm not the one who keeps posting hack threads insulting most of the country, creeper...

Most of the country opposes abortion, fraud.

so you might want to re-evaluate.

and you'd have to matter for me to hate you. hate isn't my thing-- unlike you.

I figure you just hate human life in general. Leftism is the manifestation of the contempt one has for we, the living.