CDZ Why Do You Support Abortion

[Asclepias]

Mugging old ladies is a crime because you are depriving them of their rights while they are not effecting yours Very large difference.

Still has nothing to do with you, just your double standard. You think you can pick and choose which atrocities are ok and which ones are not.

its not a double standard. Its not even the same circumstances. Should someone that litters get the same amount of time that someone should that mugs an old lady? They are both against the law. It helps when you can make that distinction so you wont go around claiming something is a double standard. A double standard occurs when the circumstances are identical.

Violence is violence, whether it's against a little old lady or a defenseless child (baby).

Stepping on an ant is violence. Whats your point?

You equate ants with humans?

Yep. They live and breathe just like we do.

 

[S.J.]

Still has nothing to do with you, just your double standard. You think you can pick and choose which atrocities are ok and which ones are not.

its not a double standard. Its not even the same circumstances. Should someone that litters get the same amount of time that someone should that mugs an old lady? They are both against the law. It helps when you can make that distinction so you wont go around claiming something is a double standard. A double standard occurs when the circumstances are identical.

Violence is violence, whether it's against a little old lady or a defenseless child (baby).

Stepping on an ant is violence. Whats your point?

You equate ants with humans?

Yep. They live and breathe just like we do.

Well, I would say "there goes your credibility" but you never had any to begin with so I'll just say "bye".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

its not a double standard. Its not even the same circumstances. Should someone that litters get the same amount of time that someone should that mugs an old lady? They are both against the law. It helps when you can make that distinction so you wont go around claiming something is a double standard. A double standard occurs when the circumstances are identical.

Violence is violence, whether it's against a little old lady or a defenseless child (baby).

Stepping on an ant is violence. Whats your point?

You equate ants with humans?

Yep. They live and breathe just like we do.

Well, I would say "there goes your credibility" but you never had any to begin with so I'll just say "bye".

Something the both of you have in common.

 

[Asclepias]

its not a double standard. Its not even the same circumstances. Should someone that litters get the same amount of time that someone should that mugs an old lady? They are both against the law. It helps when you can make that distinction so you wont go around claiming something is a double standard. A double standard occurs when the circumstances are identical.

Violence is violence, whether it's against a little old lady or a defenseless child (baby).

Stepping on an ant is violence. Whats your point?

You equate ants with humans?

Yep. They live and breathe just like we do.

Well, I would say "there goes your credibility" but you never had any to begin with so I'll just say "bye".

That was pretty smart not to say. It would have been a waste of time convincing me you even know what credibility is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I dont think its ok. Its just not my business since its not my body.

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

 

[Bonzi]

I dont think its ok. Its just not my business since its not my body.

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

 

[Mr Natural]

I don't support abortion but I do support a woman's right to choose. If she can live with it, it's on her head, not mine.

 

[presonorek]

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

I am against abortion but this is a hard legal argument.

If abortion was illegal could a woman be convicted of manslaughter if she drank a bottle of vodka while pregnant and the baby miscarried?

If abortion was illegal could a woman be convicted of manslaughter if she didn't eat her daily allowance of fruits and vegetables while pregnant and the baby died?

If abortion was illegal could a woman be convicted of a crime if she stuck a long needle inside of her own body which mistakenly punctured the baby's head? What if she wasn't pregnant? Would the same punishment be applicable? What if a man stuck a long needled inside of his own body? Should he get away with it?

Anti-abortion laws would be really hard to create. That's why this is just a soap box rally for republicans. They keep abortion at the forefront of discussion but there is really nothing we can do to prevent the legality of abortion. It is just too difficult.

We would have to create a double standard. Men would be allowed to drink vodka. Women would be forbidden from drinking vodka. Men would be allowed to eat what they want. Women would be required to eat a well balanced diet. Nobody really wants to go there. It would set us backwards as a society.

If evangelical Christians want to eliminate abortion they need to get creative. It can't be done with laws. The National Right to Life raises a lot of money. They should find a way to use it to safe lives instead of using it to force politicians to talk about a dead issue that will never change.

 

[pauls]

Bonzi,
It is only killing a human being if it is a human being. That is exactly where the moral question lies. If human life begins at birth then it is not murder to remove that life before it becomes human.
From your posts it appears that you believe that human life begins at conception - that is your moral decision. You will only be frustrated if you continue to push your moral decision on those who have made a different moral call.

 

[S.J.]

Liberals get very creative in their justifications for murder as a means of dealing with an inconvenience of their own making.

 

[pauls]

Person morality is a function of being human - just as is personal spirituality. Neither can be forced upon another nor should they.
My personal opinion on the matter means nothing to anyone who disagrees which is the way it should be.

 

[presonorek]

Person morality is a function of being human - just as is personal spirituality. Neither can be forced upon another nor should they.
My personal opinion on the matter means nothing to anyone who disagrees which is the way it should be.

Nonsense! Laws are passed all of the time and usually with dissenting viewpoints. Those morals are imposed upon the dissenters all of the time.

I disagree with seat belt laws but I still am subject to the penalties if I disobey. The morality of wearing a seatbelt was imposed upon me.

Recycling is mandatory in the state of North Carolina. I don't agree with that law. Now I am required to adhere to another man's morals. It constantly happens. It just doesn't happen with this issue. It does mean you can generalize and be accurate.

 

[pauls]

Your

Person morality is a function of being human - just as is personal spirituality. Neither can be forced upon another nor should they.
My personal opinion on the matter means nothing to anyone who disagrees which is the way it should be.

Nonsense! Laws are passed all of the time and usually with dissenting viewpoints. Those morals are imposed upon the dissenters all of the time.

I disagree with seat belt laws but I still am subject to the penalties if I disobey. The morality of wearing a seatbelt was imposed upon me.

Recycling is mandatory in the state of North Carolina. I don't agree with that law. Now I am required to adhere to another man's morals. It constantly happens. It just doesn't happen with this issue. It does mean you can generalize and be accurate.

I believe you are confusing personal freedom with moral decisions. You don't like that your personal freedom to decide for yourself if you need to wear a seat belt or recycle has been removed by an over-stepping government. In abortion the moral decision is when human life begins - not whether you can take a human life. The taking of a human life, without cause, is murder. Morality decides whether or not a human life truly exists and whether there is good cause.

 

[dblack]

I think this issue simply highlights the limits of government's ability to remedy bad outcomes via law. Simply put, we can't prevent every evil by passing a law. Particularly when enforcing the law creates greater violence than it cures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I dont think its ok. Its just not my business since its not my body.

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

 

[frigidweirdo]

.. when a 5 week old fetus has a heart?

Why do you support eating meat when a chicken, a cow, a pig etc has a heart?

Why do you support wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan when the people of these countries have hearts?

Why do you support executions when the people have hearts?

 

[Bonzi]

I dont think its ok. Its just not my business since its not my body.

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

 

[Bonzi]

.. when a 5 week old fetus has a heart?

Why do you support eating meat when a chicken, a cow, a pig etc has a heart?

Why do you support wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan when the people of these countries have hearts?

Why do you support executions when the people have hearts?

We are talking about abortion.
When you tell me why it is OK to kill a human in the womb I will answer.

 

[pauls]

I understand that you believe a human life begins at conception, but not everyone else does. The constitution is a framework to limit the powers of the federal government and has nothing to do with personal moral choices. We have laws against murder but we have no laws about when a human life begins - mostly. There have been people charged with murder when a baby was delivered and took a single breath on its own before it died due to some medication (the baby was not supposed to be born alive - as in full term abortion) The people involved were arrested but I don't know if there was a conviction or not.
So, we are sure that a human life has begun when it takes its first breath outside the womb. That in absence to any law that states when the human life begins.

If you really care about this issue, and it seems you do, then you should fight for a time in which the human life begins and make it a law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

You don't understand.

The issue isn't when you or anyone else believes life begins.

The issue concerns you and others on the right who seek to violate a woman's right to privacy by compelling her to have a child against her will through force of law.

This isn't an ethical or philosophical issue, it's solely a legal issue when you cross the line into advocating that abortion be codified as illegal as a matter of statutory policy, where as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Now, if you want to make an ethical or philosophical argument that life begins at conception, you're at liberty to do so, provided you understand you may not cross into the legal, Constitutional realm and advocate that abortion be 'banned.' Because when you do venture into the legal realm, your ethical, philosophical argument becomes irrelevant and devoid of merit.