Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[DaGoose]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the **** out of her business.

.

You betcha I'm in favor of government control over private decisions that harm other people. And so are you . . . unless you happen to want to harm someone without consequences. So who's REALLY being dishonest here?

And I don't believe YOU are a woman, so why are you expressing an opinion on a decision you'll never have to make? Speaking of hypocrisy . . .

Uhhh.....MY "opinion" is that NOBODY should have a say over her decisions unless you're her, her doctor or God. And since you're not her or her doctor you must be pretending to speak for God, right?

You're obviously trying to tell what she should or should not do. And I don't believe she really cares what you have to say about it. So again, stay the hell out of her medical decsions.

.

 

[Zona]

It's about the child’s life. Not a difficult concept for an honest person.

I agree. And Abortion is illegal!

Wait...what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny you should mention that. Because forced government intervention is what we got with the Terri Schiavo case. Remember that fiasco? Do you think THAT was a proper role of government?

.

Which part?

Should the parents not have the right to petition the courts to keep their daughter alive?

Should the husband not have the right to petition the courts to allow his wife to die with dignity?

It seems to me that, no matter which side you are on in that, you can make a valid argument for government intervention. If she had a living will on file her wishes would have been clear, without it it is inevitable that the government is involved. In fact, they are involved even with the living will.

The only way to eliminate government invovlement in cases like Terry Shialvo is to eliminate the government. I am pretty sure you do not think that is a good idea, which means you must support government involvement in it.

That is the problem with trying to stereotype your opponents, you always paint yourself into a corner. Not everyone is quick enough to see the trap you made for yourself, but when they do, you look really stupid. In the future you should just remember that, just because you think someone is an idiot, that is not proof they are.

Now YOU'RE the one who is looking stupid. You really don't have a clue as to what was going on with that case, do you?

Within a week, when the Schindlers' final appeal was exhausted, State Rep. Frank Attkisson and the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law," giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to remove Schiavo from the hospice. She was taken to Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater, where her feeding tube was surgically reinserted.[39] She was then returned to the hospice. Part of the legislation required the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), Dr. Jay Wolfson, to "deduce and represent the best wishes and best interests" of Schiavo, and report them to Governor Bush.

I was satisfied with the family fighting it out in COURT. What I am opposed to, and you profess to favor, is an activist government attempting to force a particular moral belief on the citizens.

So finally you have made it clear that you favor big government involving itself in the private lives of the citizens.

Now see? That wasn't so hard, was it? I knew you'd get there eventually.

.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You asked me a pointless question. I answered. You then claim that, because I did not mention the legislature in a way that made you feel important, that I favor something I clearly do not.

Believe it or not, like it or not, everyone has a right to petition the government. That right to petition is not limited to the judicial branch, it also includes the legislative branch and the executive branch. Just because someone has used up all their appeals through the judicial branch, that does not mean they cannot appeal to the other branches of the government. Congress often passes laws that specifically allow individuals to stay in the country after their court appeals have been exhausted, and the executive branch has the power to grant pardon, parole, and clemency, often without supervision.

As long as we have government, we are stuck with it interfering in our lives. Me knowing that, accepting it, and adapting to the way life actually works, does not mean I agree with everything the government does. Your ignorance of the power to petition and how it works does not make you witty, nor does it make you intelligent. As a matter of fact, your whining about it just makes you look silly.

Accept reality, you will feel better.

 

[DaGoose]

Which part?

Should the parents not have the right to petition the courts to keep their daughter alive?

Should the husband not have the right to petition the courts to allow his wife to die with dignity?

It seems to me that, no matter which side you are on in that, you can make a valid argument for government intervention. If she had a living will on file her wishes would have been clear, without it it is inevitable that the government is involved. In fact, they are involved even with the living will.

The only way to eliminate government invovlement in cases like Terry Shialvo is to eliminate the government. I am pretty sure you do not think that is a good idea, which means you must support government involvement in it.

That is the problem with trying to stereotype your opponents, you always paint yourself into a corner. Not everyone is quick enough to see the trap you made for yourself, but when they do, you look really stupid. In the future you should just remember that, just because you think someone is an idiot, that is not proof they are.

Now YOU'RE the one who is looking stupid. You really don't have a clue as to what was going on with that case, do you?

Within a week, when the Schindlers' final appeal was exhausted, State Rep. Frank Attkisson and the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law," giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to remove Schiavo from the hospice. She was taken to Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater, where her feeding tube was surgically reinserted.[39] She was then returned to the hospice. Part of the legislation required the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), Dr. Jay Wolfson, to "deduce and represent the best wishes and best interests" of Schiavo, and report them to Governor Bush.

I was satisfied with the family fighting it out in COURT. What I am opposed to, and you profess to favor, is an activist government attempting to force a particular moral belief on the citizens.

So finally you have made it clear that you favor big government involving itself in the private lives of the citizens.

Now see? That wasn't so hard, was it? I knew you'd get there eventually.

.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You asked me a pointless question. I answered. You then claim that, because I did not mention the legislature in a way that made you feel important, that I favor something I clearly do not.

Believe it or not, like it or not, everyone has a right to petition the government. That right to petition is not limited to the judicial branch, it also includes the legislative branch and the executive branch. Just because someone has used up all their appeals through the judicial branch, that does not mean they cannot appeal to the other branches of the government. Congress often passes laws that specifically allow individuals to stay in the country after their court appeals have been exhausted, and the executive branch has the power to grant pardon, parole, and clemency, often without supervision.

As long as we have government, we are stuck with it interfering in our lives. Me knowing that, accepting it, and adapting to the way life actually works, does not mean I agree with everything the government does. Your ignorance of the power to petition and how it works does not make you witty, nor does it make you intelligent. As a matter of fact, your whining about it just makes you look silly.

Accept reality, you will feel better.

Accept reality? Ok, let's talk reality.

The reality is that, based on your diatribes, is that you would be in support of "Terri's Law" that would have, in effect, taken end of life decisions away from a spouse and his or her doctor and placed it with the government. Is that what you're saying you support?

And I wonder what we would be today if our Founding Fathers would have simply accepted and adapted to government intervention in their lives.

And not only will I whine, I will shout and protest any government intervention into areas that I feel is none of their business. Just because you consent to living in a police state doesn't mean that I have to accept it.

There's your reality.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm not in favor of aborting a baby at any time up until actual birth. But there is a point where the fetus becomes viable and it is before that point that I am in complete favor of allowing the choice to abort the pregnancy.

Hmmm... 10 years before the birth of my youngest, she would not have been considered "viable" with hardly a chance to survive... then she happens as technology advances...

Well it's a good thing you had that CHOICE and were able to bring your child in to this world. Let other people make their own choice too. Freedom of choice.

No different than saying that a person who is 90 and in a coma is not viable because they can't survive without the total care of someone else... but you take that person out, and it is also murder...

Pulling life support on someone who couldn't survive without assistance is not murder, but nice try. You actually only prove my point further with this example. Thanks.

1) You do not get to make that choice about the lives of others.... for your convenience
2) It is indeed murder if you go and do it on a whim

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not saying this should determine whether or not someone is pro-life or pro-choice but I have a question.

Does anyone really think making abortions illegal would stop them or even decrease them by a decent percentage?

To me, if it's made illegal in one state, the person wanting one will just go to another state.

If it's made illegal nationwide, seems like women will just look online at how to do it themselves and do it in their bathroom. Or they will have it done on the black market that making them illegal would create. Or they'll just go to another country to get it done.

To me it seems like it would just be another drug war. Ineffective, wouldn't stop what you're trying to stop or really even put a dent in it, and you'd just end up spending billions and billions of dollars just to punish a tiny $ of women who already had it done.

 

[AllieBaba]

The sole purpose of the government is to PROTECT ITS CITIZENS. Particularly ones that can't protect themselves.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not saying this should determine whether or not someone is pro-life or pro-choice but I have a question.

Does anyone really think making abortions illegal would stop them or even decrease them by a decent percentage?

To me, if it's made illegal in one state, the person wanting one will just go to another state.

If it's made illegal nationwide, seems like women will just look online at how to do it themselves and do it in their bathroom. Or they will have it done on the black market that making them illegal would create. Or they'll just go to another country to get it done.

To me it seems like it would just be another drug war. Ineffective, wouldn't stop what you're trying to stop or really even put a dent in it, and you'd just end up spending billions and billions of dollars just to punish a tiny $ of women who already had it done.

Once again, abortions increased exponentially when made legal. It follows that they will decrease when they're illegal.

Your post, btw, is completely meaningless rhetoric that isn't supported by any evidence. Billions and billions spent to punish women, lol. What a joke.

 

[DaGoose]

I'm not saying this should determine whether or not someone is pro-life or pro-choice but I have a question.

Does anyone really think making abortions illegal would stop them or even decrease them by a decent percentage?

To me, if it's made illegal in one state, the person wanting one will just go to another state.

If it's made illegal nationwide, seems like women will just look online at how to do it themselves and do it in their bathroom. Or they will have it done on the black market that making them illegal would create. Or they'll just go to another country to get it done.

To me it seems like it would just be another drug war. Ineffective, wouldn't stop what you're trying to stop or really even put a dent in it, and you'd just end up spending billions and billions of dollars just to punish a tiny $ of women who already had it done.

Once again, abortions increased exponentially when made legal........

And then the GOP will have achieved another area to increase control over our private lives which should make you happy.

.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ad hominem.

And false premise, loser.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not saying this should determine whether or not someone is pro-life or pro-choice but I have a question.

Does anyone really think making abortions illegal would stop them or even decrease them by a decent percentage?

To me, if it's made illegal in one state, the person wanting one will just go to another state.

If it's made illegal nationwide, seems like women will just look online at how to do it themselves and do it in their bathroom. Or they will have it done on the black market that making them illegal would create. Or they'll just go to another country to get it done.

To me it seems like it would just be another drug war. Ineffective, wouldn't stop what you're trying to stop or really even put a dent in it, and you'd just end up spending billions and billions of dollars just to punish a tiny $ of women who already had it done.

Once again, abortions increased exponentially when made legal. It follows that they will decrease when they're illegal.

Your post, btw, is completely meaningless rhetoric that isn't supported by any evidence. Billions and billions spent to punish women, lol. What a joke.

Reported abortions increased, I doubt when someone did it themselves they made a point to go out and tell people. Also in the past when they were illegal there was no internet, you agree that it would be very easy for a woman to simply look up how to do it online, get the stuff she needed and do it in her own bathroom if she wanted to have one right?

No one is right or wrong, we're both just predicting a hypothetical that is likely never to become reality.

Would just seem like an awfully easy thing to do if someone wanted to do it.

Also I think it'd be awfully expensive to enforce something like that, especially since it'd be almost impossible to prove someone had one done and catch them.

 

[AllieBaba]

The thing is, abortion rates continued to climb and climb for years after they were made legal. There's really no question that more women obtained abortions once they were legalized. I can't think of anyone who disputes it, even though the numbers have always been hinky and malleable, and continue to be today.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The thing is, abortion rates continued to climb and climb for years after they were made legal. There's really no question that more women obtained abortions once they were legalized. I can't think of anyone who disputes it, even though the numbers have always been hinky and malleable, and continue to be today.

Again, reported abortions increased, women for decades have been doing them on their own and I think that would skyrocket if they were made illegal nationwide.

If a woman wanted an abortion, she'd have it, and if it's about stopping an abortion I don't think making them illegal would even have a significant affect.

Is it about keeping abortions from happening? Or is it about punishing a tiny % of women who have already had them?

Agree to disagree.

 

[DaGoose]

The thing is, abortion rates continued to climb and climb for years after they were made legal. There's really no question that more women obtained abortions once they were legalized. I can't think of anyone who disputes it, even though the numbers have always been hinky and malleable, and continue to be today.

And again....what a woman chooses to do with her body is her business and unless you're her, her doctor or God you have no say over it.

PERIOD

.

 

[AllieBaba]

For your edification:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf

There is absolutely no indication that women would continue to seek abortions in the same numbers if they were illegal. That's just a little bit of fear mongering propaganda circulated by those who want the industry to continue chugging along.

 

[AllieBaba]

The thing is, abortion rates continued to climb and climb for years after they were made legal. There's really no question that more women obtained abortions once they were legalized. I can't think of anyone who disputes it, even though the numbers have always been hinky and malleable, and continue to be today.

And again....what a woman chooses to do with her body is her business and unless you're her, her doctor or God you have no say over it.

PERIOD

.

Not if she's using that body to kill someone.

Period.

 

[DiamondDave]

The thing is, abortion rates continued to climb and climb for years after they were made legal. There's really no question that more women obtained abortions once they were legalized. I can't think of anyone who disputes it, even though the numbers have always been hinky and malleable, and continue to be today.

And again....what a woman chooses to do with her body is her business and unless you're her, her doctor or God you have no say over it.

PERIOD

.

Whether you believe in God is not relevant... but nice try in your prototypical leftist attack

If it were purely her body, it would purely be her DNA, phenotype, etc and not be it's own unique developing life that will go off on its own after being raised.... not like this is body modification or lopping off your own ear on a whim

 

[midcan5]

Both of these threads should be the Religion section.

"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg Joel Feinberg, Abortion

 

[Immanuel]

The sole purpose of the government is to PROTECT ITS CITIZENS. Particularly ones that can't protect themselves.

I agree, but I don't think the government agrees. It seems that our elected officials believe their sole purpose is to collect your money and spend it however they see fit.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

Both of these threads should be the Religion section.

Really???

You have to be religious to be on either side of this argument???