Abortion

[manu1959]

No, it isn't. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Congress merely gave him the choice. Its his fault.

If you are given a choice to do something or not to do it, and you do it, and it turns out to be a wrong choice, its your fault.

he asked congress ...congress said ya go ahead....so he did...it is congress fault....they should have said no

 

[SpidermanTuba]

he asked congress ...congress said ya go ahead....so he did...it is congress fault....they should have said no

Your statement flies in the face of any concept of responsibility for ones decisions, and is clear evidence of your brainwashing.

By your logic, if a woman asks a man to have sex with him, and he agrees, and she gets pregnant, its primarily the man's fault she got pregnant.

 

[manu1959]

Your statement flies in the face of any concept of responsibility for ones decisions, and is clear evidence of your brainwashing.

By your logic, if a woman asks a man to have sex with him, and he agrees, and she gets pregnant, its primarily the man's fault she got pregnant.

exactly...btw congress is the man in your anaolgy

 

[SpidermanTuba]

exactly...btw congress is the man in your anaolgy

Well, OK, you don't believe anyone should be held responsible for their choices, I get it.

You blame God for Eve's choice to eat the apple.

 

[manu1959]

Well, OK, you don't believe anyone should be held responsible for their choices, I get it.

You blame God for Eve's choice to eat the apple.

you don't belive congress should be held accountable for thier choices you think bush should be held accountable.

i blame god for nothing....hey i didn't think you believed in god or eve for that matter? why do you think it was was god's fault?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you don't belive congress should be held accountable for thier choices

I didn't say that. They should also be held accountable.

you think bush should be held accountable.

Are you suggesting there's an inconsistency in assigning the responsibility of the choice to one and not the other?

Then why do you insist on doing it?

i blame god for nothing....hey i didn't think you believed in god or eve for that matter? why do you think it was was god's fault?

Its was clearly god's fault, he offered them the choice. Its the fault of the choice offerer, Manu, like Congress, or God, not the fault of the person actually making the decision, like Eve, or Bush. You've already established this.

 

[manu1959]

I didn't say that. They should also be held accountable.
Are you suggesting there's an inconsistency in assigning the responsibility of the choice to one and not the other?
Then why do you insist on doing it?
Its was clearly god's fault, he offered them the choice. Its the fault of the choice offerer, Manu, like Congress, or God, not the fault of the person actually making the decision, like Eve, or Bush. You've already established this.

yes you did.

you said it was bushs fault and have with every post said that congress had no responsibility....are you now saying congress is equally responsible...if so did not congress lie? and if so then you should change your signature.

but you don't belive in god. how can someone that does not exist be responsible for something that you also claim never happened? unless you are now saying god exists.....but you are a man of science you can not possible belive in god...can you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

yes you did.

you said it was bushs fault and have with every post said that congress had no responsibility....

No, in fact, I have not said at any point that congress has no responsibility. You are a liar.

are you now saying congress is equally responsible...if so did not congress lie? and if so then you should change your signature.

So if Congress lies, this means all of Bush's lies are magically transformed into truths? That really doesn't make any logical sense, whatsoever. You are severely brainwashed.

but you don't belive in god. how can someone that does not exist be responsible for something that you also claim never happened? unless you are now saying god exists.....but you are a man of science you can not possible belive in god...can you?

I do believe in God. The God of all the universe is named Keeb. Unlike the Christian God, He isn't so egotistical as to banish you to Hell simply for not believing in Him, so you have nothing to fear from him Manu.

There are many men of science who are also religious. You are again lying. Darwin himself was very religious.

 

[manu1959]

No, in fact, I have not said at any point that congress has no responsibility. You are a liar.

So if Congress lies, this means all of Bush's lies are magically transformed into truths? That really doesn't make any logical sense, whatsoever. You are severely brainwashed.

I do believe in God. The God of all the universe is named Keeb. Unlike the Christian God, He isn't so egotistical as to banish you to Hell simply for not believing in Him, so you have nothing to fear from him Manu.

There are many men of science who are also religious. You are again lying. Darwin himself was very religious.

you said that it was bush now you say that it was congress as well...fair enough....

in order to lie i would have to know the truth.....i have never claimed to know the truth.....

i fear nothing......least of all hell

i have never hear of Keeb....tell me more

 

[Bonnie]

Then why do you support BUsh killing 30000 Iraqis?


Does something being legal mean the government is sanctioning it? If I live in a country, say, the US, where I can publish cartoons depicting the religion of my choice, say, Islam, in a negative light, does that mean the government is sanctioning my cartoon? Does our government sanction neo-nazi parades, since they are legal?


Read the 9th Amendment. That's where the right to privacy is. The founding fathers realized there were certain OBVIOUS basic rights, but that there were too many to list, and they might forget to include some, so they wrote the 9th amendment.

A right to privacy does not equate to killing ones child no matter how you spin that.

 

[Bonnie]

to agree with you. I do wish that there were sufficient emotional and financial support, as well as cultural acceptance, available so that most women who got pregnant unintentionally would feel comfortable having the baby and giving it up for adoption if unable to raise it themselves.

Imagine a woman working a minimum wage job with no health insurance, and having a complicated pregnancy that requires, say, 3 months of bedrest. Where, in the pro-life position, is there the support for this woman?

What about an alcoholic woman who gets pregnant but can't quit drinking?

Or a woman in an abusive relationship whose partner doesn't want to have the baby?

That's where I think the arguments I made earlier apply--much of the pro-life movement seems to neglect that actual issues that make many women choose to have an abortion.

Mariner.

I have worked with Pro-life organizations that support both the mother and unborn baby all through pregnancy even supplying education and job opportunities, and there are many out there for women who actually look and seek. Lets get real, many women just don't want to go through the trouble and take the easy way out, and that is sad. All of these excuses you stated, alcholism, abusive partners are all fixable without killing the innocent baby in the process, I have seen this first hand.

 

[Mariner]

interested in the details of how these situations are "fixable." Private charity and pro-life groups obviously don't have the capacity to handle the vast numbers of babies being aborted. Who's going to pay thee $3000 for each delivery when the mother has no health insurance, what to say of the prenatal care and lost work? Who is going to intervene with the abusive partner? To me (and to Jimmy Carter in his new book), these problems require that government make a stronger social safety net as part of a pro-life stance opposing abortion. However, the Republican party does not support a stronger social safety net. That's the conflict I'm curious about.

Re: Spidey vs. Manu

Spidey, you don't have to fight any more. In his desire to make Bush innocent of the Iraqi civilian deaths Manu is tacitly admitting that the deaths were not justified, i.e. the war was unnecessary or a mistake. You've won.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

interested in the details of how these situations are "fixable." Private charity and pro-life groups obviously don't have the capacity to handle the vast numbers of babies being aborted. Who's going to pay thee $3000 for each delivery when the mother has no health insurance, what to say of the prenatal care and lost work? Who is going to intervene with the abusive partner? To me (and to Jimmy Carter in his new book), these problems require that government make a stronger social safety net as part of a pro-life stance opposing abortion. However, the Republican party does not support a stronger social safety net. That's the conflict I'm curious about.

Re: Spidey vs. Manu

Spidey, you don't have to fight any more. In his desire to make Bush innocent of the Iraqi civilian deaths Manu is tacitly admitting that the deaths were not justified, i.e. the war was unnecessary or a mistake. You've won.

Mariner.

Is it so obvious they can't handle it?

Medical costs should be cut by introducing freemarket forces into medicine. 3k is way too much for a half day's work at most.

What's most obvious to me, mariner, is your desire to institute socialized medicine, procure guaranteed non market fees for your doctor friends, and hide glaring failures of centralized planning with euthanasia and abortion. What a cowardly new world you desire.

 

[Gem]

I have no right to possess any part of anyone's body but my own.

Then why does a woman have the right to kill a person with an entirely different blood type, dna structure, hey...sometimes even different sexual organs...all because that person happens to be unlucky enough to be developing inside her?

Bottom line...abortion can not be justified based on the logic that the fetus is not a seperate person, or not a person at all. A fetus is a person at its earliest stages...just like a toddler is not yet an adult. We do not have to give a toddler the right to drive a car or drink a beer...but we do recognize that it is a small human worthy of protection.

With that in mind, a compromise can begin to form. A fetus does not have the same rights as a born human - hence why the vast majority of people who identify themselves as pro-life, or pro-choice but with limits...will support abortion in the case of the life of the mother, or in cases or rape and/or incest.

But to attempt to forward the misconception that a fetus is not a human in one stage or another is one of the reasons why the pro-choice movement has been losing supporters, rather than gaining them. It defies common sense, and is cold and disingenuous.

A woman has a right to her body, yes. But to abort a human in its earliest stages because you do not want to inconvinience yourself for 9 months is something that every person in this country should be striving to stop.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A right to privacy does not equate to killing ones child no matter how you spin that.

The issue at hand is abortion, which is the killing of a fetus, not child killing.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have worked with Pro-life organizations that support both the mother and unborn baby all through pregnancy even supplying education and job opportunities, and there are many out there for women who actually look and seek. Lets get real, many women just don't want to go through the trouble and take the easy way out, and that is sad. All of these excuses you stated, alcholism, abusive partners are all fixable without killing the innocent baby in the process, I have seen this first hand.

And after the baby's born, they say "see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya! "


There aren't enough homes for all the children in foster care. Plenty of people willing to take a baby, but not enough willing to take older children. If there are less babies up for adoption, more people on waiting lists for babies will decide to go ahead and try to adopt an older child.

 

[dilloduck]

The issue at hand is abortion, which is the killing of a fetus, not child killing.

The fetus created by a MAN and a woman but somehow only the woman can decide what to do with it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then why does a woman have the right to kill a person with an entirely different blood type, dna structure, hey...sometimes even different sexual organs...all because that person happens to be unlucky enough to be developing inside her?

You answered your own question. Its because its inside her uterus.

Bottom line...abortion can not be justified based on the logic that the fetus is not a seperate person, or not a person at all.

We're not talking about whether its justified or not, we're talking about whether or not its the governments business to own the uterus's of women. There are plenty of things which are morally wrong that are still legal. Abortion is one of them.

A fetus is a person at its earliest stages...just like a toddler is not yet an adult. We do not have to give a toddler the right to drive a car or drink a beer...but we do recognize that it is a small human worthy of protection.

Why not? That toddler is a human being, like you or me. The toddler has unique DNA, has feelings, has a beating heart, heck, I say give him a car.

With that in mind, a compromise can begin to form. A fetus does not have the same rights as a born human - hence why the vast majority of people who identify themselves as pro-life, or pro-choice but with limits...will support abortion in the case of the life of the mother, or in cases or rape and/or incest.

A law which would make abortion illegal except in rape or incest is about as impractical as you can get. You either have to take the woman's word that she was raped - which is as good as having legal abortion - or you have to require that a rapist is found guilty in a court of law, which if it ever happens would happen far longer than 9 months after conception.

But to attempt to forward the misconception that a fetus is not a human in one stage or another is one of the reasons why the pro-choice movement has been losing supporters, rather than gaining them. It defies common sense, and is cold and disingenuous.

Its not a question of whether or not its a human. That's ridiculous. The question is one of where its government's business to go, and it isn't government's business to go inside someone's uterus.

A woman has a right to her body, yes. But to abort a human in its earliest stages because you do not want to inconvinience yourself for 9 months is something that every person in this country should be striving to stop.

You people are aware that human children actually require being raised, right?








What's the deal with your exception for rapes, anyway? Do you find less value in human life which is the result of a rape? Are children of rapes lesser human beings than you or I, deserving lesser rights? Or does that distinction only apply inside the uterus? Seems a bit of a double standard to me to say that exceptions to rights in the uterus apply for the views you hold but not for mine.

If you believe abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, you have already acknowledged that a human life's rights are different if they are inside someone's womb. If you believe the mother's life should be chosen over the fetus's, if it comes down to a choice between the two, you have already decided the mother's life to be more valuable. Thus you are making the same sorts of distinctions - between life in a uterus, and life outside a uterus - as pro-choicers are.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The fetus created by a MAN and a woman but somehow only the woman can decide what to do with it.

Has something to do with the fetus being inside of her body. A subtle difference you might not be aware of.

 

[dilloduck]

You answered your own question. Its because its inside her uterus.



We're not talking about whether its justified or not, we're talking about whether or not its the governments business to own the uterus's of women. There are plenty of things which are morally wrong that are still legal. Abortion is one of them.



Why not? That toddler is a human being, like you or me. The toddler has unique DNA, has feelings, has a beating heart, heck, I say give him a car.



A law which would make abortion illegal except in rape or incest is about as impractical as you can get. You either have to take the woman's word that she was raped - which is as good as having legal abortion - or you have to require that a rapist is found guilty in a court of law, which if it ever happens would happen far longer than 9 months after conception.



Its not a question of whether or not its a human. That's ridiculous. The question is one of where its government's business to go, and it isn't government's business to go inside someone's uterus.



You people are aware that human children actually require being raised, right?








What's the deal with your exception for rapes, anyway? Do you find less value in human life which is the result of a rape? Are children of rapes lesser human beings than you or I, deserving lesser rights? Or does that distinction only apply inside the uterus? Seems a bit of a double standard to me to say that exceptions to rights in the uterus apply for the views you hold but not for mine.

If you believe abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, you have already acknowledged that a human life's rights are different if they are inside someone's womb. If you believe the mother's life should be chosen over the fetus's, if it comes down to a choice between the two, you have already decided the mother's life to be more valuable. Thus you are making the same sorts of distinctions - between life in a uterus, and life outside a uterus - as pro-choicers are.

Even some pro-life women can't accept a man forcing them to do anything.