Toggle sidebar

Kerry supports abortion rights

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jthomas666:
???
Please explain your reasoning here. My argument is as follows: When a child has defects such that survival is impossible (not unlikely, not improbably--IMPOSSIBLE), then abortion should be an option.

Your statement strongly suggests that you didn't read my post fully. At the very least, you ignored my point.

Read the example again. The nature of the defect was such that there was NO CHANCE for survival. Are you actually arguing that

1. The parents should be forced to watch their child slowly die, and
2. That the child should be condemned to a slow, painful death?

Is this really what you are advocating?

</font>
Click to expand...


I read your post fully and completely. I am advocating that a child should be given a chance at life. Maybe, just maybe, that child's short life is a gift to this world that offers answers on how to prevent that child's horrible disease from happening to another child. But hey, I'm optomistic. Also, if it was "genetic" then I blame the parents for being selfish and trying again. For trying again, I feel that if the second child did come up with that disease then the parents could have been held on murder charges. The human vanity they showed just disgusting.

Oh yeah, I read your post completely and fully.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by NOSty:
I read your post fully and completely. I am advocating that a child should be given a chance at life. Maybe, just maybe, that child's short life is a gift to this world that offers answers on how to prevent that child's horrible disease from happening to another child. But hey, I'm optomistic.</font>
Click to expand...

I know several people who feel the same way. Perhaps if I hadn't watched my friend's suffering, I'd feel the same way.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, if it was "genetic" then I blame the parents for being selfish and trying again. For trying again, I feel that if the second child did come up with that disease then the parents could have been held on murder charges. The human vanity they showed just disgusting.
</font>
Click to expand...

At this point I'd have to say that you're the one who's disgusting.

Suppose a couple has had a miscarriage. Would you have them locked up for trying again?

There are a number of serious conditions that are linked to recessive genes. Are you saying that these people should never have children?

------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
 
You asked about a specific case and I answered. I wasn't willing to kill anyone, your friends were. They were willing to bring a life into this world and then snuff it out. That's disgusting. There are plenty of babies to be adopted. I would expect a liberal to understand that.

I bet you and them would pitch a fit if anyone put a bunch of kittens in a burlap sack and sent it to the bottom of a lake.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fosterkeats:

So this is the ###th time you have cut and pasted your feelings on this subject...

Quit rolling this in with other issues, they are not the same...

Choice is the issue, and the last time I checked, the WOMAN, not the MAN, was the one who makes the decision... so stop your preaching and move along...</font>
Click to expand...

If you propose the argument that a man can't argue in the abortion debate because they are men. Then no heterosexuals should be able to fight for homosexuals.



[This message has been edited by BamaBoyInGa (edited 04-26-2004).]
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BamaBoyInGa:
If you propose the argument that a man can't argue in the abortion debate because they are men. Then no heterosexuals should be able to fight for homosexuals.
</font>
Click to expand...

And also, no heterosexuals would be able to fight against homosexuals.

------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TommyMac:
Isn't the opposite of "pro-life" "pro-death"? </font>
Click to expand...

By that same logic, I could say that the opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice, which is anti-American. I am not saying that you are anti-American, but I hope you get my point about the name of the movement.

And I don't think that it is inconsistent at all to be for both pro-gun control and pro-choice. There are limits to each amendment in the Bill of Rights. Yes, we have the right to bear arms, but would anyone here support my right to own a nuclear weapon? If not, where exactly is the line drawn? Likewise, I have the right to free speech, but I don't have a right go around saying "I am going to kill the president." That is a crime. I can't claim free speech rights when the secret service comes knocking at my door.

It is up to each one of us to decide for ourselves if and when an abortion would be appropriate. Most of you here would abhor it under any circumstances. That is fine, and well within your rights. What you don't have the right to do is to decide for other people. That is all that the "nine men" said back in 1973. They weren't forcing women to have abortions--they were allowing them to decide for themselves. It is between the pregnant woman, the man, their doctor, and their God. And really, ultimately, it is the woman's choice because the fetus is in her body.
 
I think we should give the fetus a say if we really want to be pro-choice!

"Your mom is about to murder you before you are born because she can't live with some of her irresponsible behavior. What do you want little fetus? Is it okay for mommy to have you murdered? It will only hurt for a little while. On the other hand, if we let you live, mommy will either have to face her responsibilities and take care of you OR turn you over to a loving family who will be happy to accept you into their life. Of course, if you go to another family, mommy will probably always feel bad about her CHOICE to give you away. So it is best for her if mommy has you murdered. It is up to you though - life or death. What is your CHOICE little fetus?"

And for all you pro-choice pro-murderers listening:

It's God's choice, not your choice!
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rukus:
I think we should give the fetus a say if we really want to be pro-choice!

"Your mom is about to murder you before you are born because she can't live with some of her irresponsible behavior. What do you want little fetus? Is it okay for mommy to have you murdered? It will only hurt for a little while. On the other hand, if we let you live, mommy will either have to face her responsibilities and take care of you OR turn you over to a loving family who will be happy to accept you into their life. Of course, if you go to another family, mommy will probably always feel bad about her CHOICE to give you away. So it is best for her if mommy has you murdered. It is up to you though - life or death. What is your CHOICE little fetus?"

And for all you pro-choice pro-murderers listening:

It's God's choice, not your choice!

</font>
Click to expand...

Nicely done
 
Somebody mentioned something about conservatives and the death penalty, and I want to address that for a moment.

Such an argument may be the quintessential example of an apples and oranges comparison.

Conservatives favor the death penalty as PUNISHMENT for one who has already committed a crime (the guilty). The conservative worldview is that only by making the punishment something to fear can cause the criminal to at least think about the consequences of his actions. Most conservatives favor death as a penalty for one who has taken the life of another by predmeditated means.

Abortion, on the other hand, involves protecting the innocent who cannot speak for himself. That is the basis of the pro-life position.

In summary, one involves punishing the guilty while the other involves protecting the innocent.

And again, the ultimate contradiction is that a person can injure a woman who is two months pregnant and be charged with murder, yet the same woman can down the street to a doctor and pay him to it, and it's legal.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by selmaborntidefan:
Fosterkeats,

Still unable to argue RATIONALLY?

Not a big surprise, I'm sure you saw the brain scans of people being done at that university showing that conservatives think with their head and liberals with their emotions (like I needed a study to tell me that).

Okay, let's deal with your erroneous accusations one at a time.

First you assert:

So this is the ###th time you have cut and pasted your feelings on this subject...

Quit rolling this in with other issues, they are not the same...


Rebuttal:

In the first place, I've not cut and pasted ANYTHING on this board without providing a link. No, I type pretty fast and I think even faster. It comes natural to some of us.

As far as the issue, the issue of the post is whether or not Kerry supports abortion rights and why and whether or not the RCC should deny him communion.

Yes, I propose gun control because it PROVES your hypocrisy. Why? Well, it's very simple: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS EXPLICITLY PROTECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION; abortion is nowhere hinted at, mentioned, or thought of.

Now, that does NOT mean that abortion may not be protected by the Constitution; it's what the 'unenumerated rights' are, and the 1973 SC decided that the founders REALLY meant abortion.

But it DOES answer your argument very clearly. The thrust of the argument - at least the one you are presenting - is, "It's the choice of the woman and nobody else."

Well, I guess if you live in a vacuum, that might be true. The problem is that women do not get pregnant by themselves. The last time I looked, it took a sperm cell that women do not produce. Let's flip the argument: a woman has a child with a man and leaves him and sues for child support. According to most laws she gets it. Why? Because it takes two to tango.

Does it not take two to tango anyway?

Further, the argument is internally inconsistent. One of my favorite is these: "Men have no business deciding about abortion" (which is hypocritical to say the least since all nine SC judges in 1973 were male - but that's an inconvenient FACT that people who use such logic overlook).

And then there's the appeal to sob stories that both sides use. Someone posted about a baby problem - and this is where the so-called exceptions rule comes in. Allow an analogy.

A person is stopped by the cops doing 110 in a 70 mph zone. When the cop gets to the car, he notices a baby who has turned blue due to choking in the back. Is the officer going to ticket the lady? Probably not.

Does that mean, however, that 110 should now be the speed limit for EVRYONE? Of course not. But that's precisely the logic that says, "Well since there are exceptions, all exceptions are EQUAL."

I reiterate: it's not an argument of individual choice because you are not just affecting the woman. You are affecting the unborn child (who, of course, has no rights unless his name is Cody Peterson and his mom is named Laci) as well as the father.

One friend of mine (who has since crossed over Jordan) was sort of pro-life. His position was essentially the same as mine, that government ought not be involved and it shouldn't be a political issue.

I agree.

But let's not forget that it became a political issue when the SC struck down ALL laws (which was their right) and then MADE THEIR OWN RULES UP AS THEY WENT and imposed them on the rest of us.

It was, therefore, the Left that made it a political issue.

</font>
Click to expand...

Yawn..........

This is a tireless agrument b/c we ALL know that abortions are still LEGAL in this country, and it is the CHOICE of the woman, not you guys... leave it alone...

If you don't like abortions, then don't get them...

But quit judging the people who do, for whatever reason... which is also none of your business...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Displaced Bama Fan:
An interesting twist...however, Liberals are Pro-Choice, but anti-death penalty, where conservatives are Pro-life and for the death penalty.

Hmmm.</font>
Click to expand...

Not all of us are for your information... I am for the woman's CHOICE as well as the death penalty...

QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS!!!
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BamaBoyInGa:
If you propose the argument that a man can't argue in the abortion debate because they are men. Then no heterosexuals should be able to fight for homosexuals.



[This message has been edited by BamaBoyInGa (edited 04-26-2004).]</font>
Click to expand...

You make NO sense...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fosterkeats:
Yawn..........

This is a tireless agrument b/c we ALL know that abortions are still LEGAL in this country, and it is the CHOICE of the woman, not you guys... leave it alone...

If you don't like abortions, then don't get them...

But quit judging the people who do, for whatever reason... which is also none of your business...

</font>
Click to expand...

That is the same argument used to justify slavery before the civil war. It's legal, mind your own business, even the supreme court said so.

denver
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by selmaborntidefan:

And again, the ultimate contradiction is that a person can injure a woman who is two months pregnant and be charged with murder, yet the same woman can down the street to a doctor and pay him to it, and it's legal.</font>
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is the ultimate contradiction--there are many publications that use "Knoxville" and "educational excellence" in the same sentence that seem far worse.

In any event, what you are describing is NOT a contradiction in any one person's ethical position, but rather a consistency issue within our nation's laws (given the way the system works, such inconsistencies are all but inevitable. But without such inconsistencies, there would be no need for accountants).


------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
 
Fosterkeats, where do you draw the line between abortion and murder? At some point, it must become murder. Where do you, personally, draw that line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back