Abortion Bullshit...

[Steelplate]

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.

.

the gambling thing is closer....

I believe that when it comes to PERSONAL sins.....like abortion, homosexuality, drinking and drugging, prostitution, masturbation, pornography(except child porn), etc.....laws should side on the individual.

The way I feel about it is that God gave us free will to sin or not sin....we also live in a free society that is supposed to respect the privacy and liberty of it's citizens.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear G: Thank you for giving more background about your perspective.
I really do encourage more prochoice and prolife advocates to interact and work together
to address and resolve common issues and invest in common solutions, instead of wasting
resources fighting politically. Along with preventing unwanted pregnancy, I see a lot of common agenda in preventing rape, abuse and sex trafficking; where the same resources it would take to organize prevention and recovery programs would also reduce abortions as result, often forced on victims to cover up abuses and rapes. So there is much more common ground on prevention, and the issue of abortion would take care of itself.

However, the more I interact with inherently prolife advocates who believe the laws should reflect this, I see more and more how unfair and biased it is to keep pushing the prochoice position as more Constitutionally inclusive (since you are theoretically leaving it open to choice either way) but not equally defending prolife views by the same principles. So I believe it is only fair to make sure that prochoice legislation equally accommodates prolife views and does not negate or exclude those either, if you are going to argue that prochoice views need to be included and not excluded by law. Especially since Republicans such as Guiliani and Kay Bailey Hutchison have made statements that explain prochoice views as viable, then more prochoice people should be equally sensitive to prolife views as protected and not requiring you to agree with them to support inclusion and protection under law.

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.

.

My favorite organization and model for preventing abortion is the Nurturing Network http://www.nurturingnetwork.org Would much rather see billboards and ads for this rather than all the junk mail and flyers about Planned Parenthood just publicizing that!
Choices for women's health care and education should be freely organized not politicized!

 

[freedombecki]

See y'all on page 42.

 

[g5000]

the gambling thing is closer....

I believe that when it comes to PERSONAL sins.....like abortion, homosexuality, drinking and drugging, prostitution, masturbation, pornography(except child porn), etc.....laws should side on the individual.

The way I feel about it is that God gave us free will to sin or not sin....we also live in a free society that is supposed to respect the privacy and liberty of it's citizens.

Okay. I am glad we were able to muddle through all that without throwing bombs at each other. Thank you.

If this is your point of view, then we are not the same in that respect. I believe it is the taking of a human life and that society has an obligation to prevent the taking of human life, whether in or out of the womb.

I think even pro-choicers believe there comes a point in the womb where abortion is no longer a gambling issue, to use some playful rhetoric, and is an inalienable human rights issue.

So we differ where that line is. You seem to be comfortable where the Supreme Court drew it, albeit very hazily, and I am not.

To be honest, where I draw the line is not so well formed, either, but it is somewhere well within the first trimester.

.

 

[Steelplate]

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

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

Depends on what scripture you read....one says "I knew you before you were born"......another talks about "Breathing the breath of life into Adam"

I believe it's both.....but once again....who's sin is it to bear? Does it go against your soul if someone else aborts a pregnancy?

God doesn't do "guilt by association"....that's the realm of Christian Conservatives more concerned with rules and punishment than God's love.

 

[freedombecki]

I'm for the choice for the baby!

Since he or she can't stick up for himself or herself, you have to wait until they learn to speak. Then you have to respect his or her choice when he or she decides life's okay.

Mamas and daddies make the choice when they have unprotected sex. If they are not ready, willing and able to support their baby, they should adopt it out to someone who'd love to have a baby but can't.

 

[g5000]

Gotta go, but this is the best abortion topic I have seen here so far. No fevers...yet.

I'll be back.

.

 

[Steelplate]

the gambling thing is closer....

I believe that when it comes to PERSONAL sins.....like abortion, homosexuality, drinking and drugging, prostitution, masturbation, pornography(except child porn), etc.....laws should side on the individual.

The way I feel about it is that God gave us free will to sin or not sin....we also live in a free society that is supposed to respect the privacy and liberty of it's citizens.

Okay. I am glad we were able to muddle through all that without throwing bombs at each other. Thank you.

If this is your point of view, then we are not the same in that respect. I believe it is the taking of a human life and that society has an obligation to prevent the taking of human life, whether in or out of the womb.

I think even pro-choicers believe there comes a point in the womb where abortion is no longer a gambling issue, to use some playful rhetoric, and is an inalienable human rights issue.

So we differ where that line is. You seem to be comfortable where the Supreme Court drew it, albeit very hazily, and I am not.

To be honest, where I draw the line is not so well formed, either, but it is somewhere well within the first trimester.

.

It's an expediant timeframe.....easy to remember....plus you have to consider that depending on when the conception occured, you could be looking at almost a month before a woman misses her next period and realizes that something's amiss. Some women have erratic periods and don't realize it till much later....but you can't account for every scenario, so I feel that 3 months is fair....but not "hazily" as you said....it should be firm.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

.

you can call it murder till you are blue in the face and pass out. Its none of your business.

Murder is everyone's business. If it wasn't, why can't you kill anyone you feel like?

If you don't believe abortion is murder, that is your opinion and it is a starting point for discussion. We then move on to debating when life begins.

But if you believe abortion is murder, it is incoherent to say it is none of your business to stop others from committing it.

If you don't believe a first trimester abortion is murder, then you don't believe it is murder. Period. There is no waffling in that viewpoint.

I am taking issue with the wafflers.



.

You can call it murder all day long but the law and sensible people realize the law says its not.
You can get past that fact that the law says its not. So you calling it murder is meaningless.you do it for shock value because who can argue against murder right?

 

[Plasmaball]

Ooo lookie, a badass

nah, not a badass, just pointing out how you need to mind your own business

Did someone die and leave you the keys to the kingdom kid?

Do bad you weren't aborted.

Do bad? I see you were a product of incest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then why does the Republican Party have this plank in their platform?

“We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

That's a long way from just letting the states decide.


GOP Platform Renews Call for 14th Amendment Protection for Unborn | CNSNews.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a rather odd position to say...

'I believe that a human life begins at conception, and thus a 1 day old fertilized egg is no different than a 1 year old child,

but,

I have no problem if the individual states want to legalize what I consider the equivalent of infanticide.'

 

[Amazed]

nah, not a badass, just pointing out how you need to mind your own business

Did someone die and leave you the keys to the kingdom kid?

Do bad you weren't aborted.

Do bad? I see you were a product of incest.

Owww, stop it hurts.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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

Fact: both parties use abortion.

That's fiction, Seawytch. Ask ANY biologist when life begins and their answer won't be an ideological one.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Would you be in favor of letting your fellow voters decide on castrating you at the age of 30? No? Maybe we shouldn't put anyone's rights up to popular vote and the changing winds of politics.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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.

If I'm ignorant I'd hardly be alone, only last week Biden used the, "abortion fear card" in the VP debate threatening women/men with Roe v Wade being overturned if Romney was elected..

btw.. Yup, I'm not a lawyer but that doesn't make you any less of an ass...

 

[Lumpy 1]

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*

Most of your rep ring friends at the USMB are the creeps.. funny how you and hypocrisy works out isn't it...

 

[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.

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.





.

leave the bible out of law

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Would you be in favor of letting your fellow voters decide on castrating you at the age of 30? No? Maybe we shouldn't put anyone's rights up to popular vote and the changing winds of politics.

thank you. as far as i'm concerned, you can never remind people too many times that leftists like you view living children as the equivalent of castration and other horrible mutilations.

by all means, continue broadcasting to people how repulsive you truly are.

 

[tinydancer]

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

Fact: both parties use abortion.

What part of you are watching tv in your 3rd month and that baby kicks the crap out that styrofoam plate right off your belly?

Let's really talk about it.

One thing that always amazed me is when you see their little hands right in your tummy. Little hands or little feet.

It is a baby.