I don't, I'm a man, I don't draw lines, I support the CHOICE of the woman to be able to end a pregnancy if she CHOOSES to... and so does the LAW...
Kerry supports abortion rights
- Thread starter tide69
- Start date
I don't, I'm a man, I don't draw lines, I support the CHOICE of the woman to be able to end a pregnancy if she CHOOSES to... and so does the LAW...
It also is the same argument that was probably used justify alcohol consumption before prohibition. Are you for banning alcohol? By that logic, you would have to be.
[This message has been edited by CrimsonChuck (edited 04-29-2004).]
Let's apply some logic to this rhetorical statement:
"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
Fair enough. Let's see it applied consistently.
"If you don't like guns, don't own one."
"If you don't like slavery, don't get one."
"If you don't like gays, don't be one."
"If you don't like sexual harassment, get a new job."
"If you don't like integrated schools, don't have one or go to one."
Yep, there's a REAL good argument in favor of abortion.
Now, that said, fosterkeats is correct about one thing: abortion IS legal. The debate, of course, is whether or not it should be. Using the logic of the pro-choice activists (and please separate the activists from those who simply hold a pro-choice position, they are NOT necessarily the same):
Brown vs. the Board of Education denied whites the right to be separate in education if they wished.
The decision to cast prayer out of schools denied every person who wants to pray the right to pray in school.
We could go on and on and on.
The Dred Scott decision was correct using these principles.
It appears that every case cited means that one group gets rights at the expense of another group's rights.
Ironically, not one of those deals with someone killing someone else simply because it's convenient.
"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
Fair enough. Let's see it applied consistently.
"If you don't like guns, don't own one."
"If you don't like slavery, don't get one."
"If you don't like gays, don't be one."
"If you don't like sexual harassment, get a new job."
"If you don't like integrated schools, don't have one or go to one."
Yep, there's a REAL good argument in favor of abortion.
Now, that said, fosterkeats is correct about one thing: abortion IS legal. The debate, of course, is whether or not it should be. Using the logic of the pro-choice activists (and please separate the activists from those who simply hold a pro-choice position, they are NOT necessarily the same):
Brown vs. the Board of Education denied whites the right to be separate in education if they wished.
The decision to cast prayer out of schools denied every person who wants to pray the right to pray in school.
We could go on and on and on.
The Dred Scott decision was correct using these principles.
It appears that every case cited means that one group gets rights at the expense of another group's rights.
Ironically, not one of those deals with someone killing someone else simply because it's convenient.
Actually, my point was that this was not a legitmate pro-choice OR pro-life argument.
On this, we agree (believe it or not). Our fundamental disagreement is whether or not a fetus counts as one of those groups, especially in relation to the group of pregnent women. I think that since it is in her body, her rights trump everything else. You, obviously, don't agree with that. We could argue until we are blue in the face, and we won't get eachother to change our minds.
FYI, no one has ever, ever, ever been denied the right to pray in public school. It is group prayer that was banned. Private prayer, which works just as well, is 1000% okay. But that is a whole other can of worms...
Exactly... but convincing the Pro Lifers is like talking to a brick wall... which, sometimes, can be more informational... hee hee...
Crimson Chuck and JThomas (I believe)
While I do not agree with you regarding this issue, may I at least say that there is some logic to your position despite my opposition to it (as opposed to fosterkeats' usual emotional blah blah blah).
By the way, JThomas,the crack about Knoxville left me in stitches, so there is some humor to be found even here.
Now, in terms of 'changing anyone's mind,' no that rarely (if ever) happens. So I have a compromise proposal for you:
Since the argument seems to center on whether or not the unborn child (fetus is usually used to escape the question of whether or not it is a life) is actually a living being, why don't we have the women who seek abortions take it out to the garbage when finished?
After all, let's say I'm the doc. I just say, "Hey, it's your body now go dispose of it." And I give her a see through bag with what's left.
I have a hunch that would surely change a lot of people's minds (although obviously too late for the aborted child).
There's something else I want to point out here. Most people who have a position on this have not even read Roe v.Wade. I have. So let me discuss one of the points the Supreme Court talked about - and then legislated for the rest of us.
The SC determined abortion to be legal because they noted that different religions, science, and philosophy could not agree on the question of when life begins. That, may I add, is a very defensible position for the court.
The problem, however, is they prescribed a remedy that, in essence, declares when life begins. They determined abortion to be legal without restriction for the first three months, limited restriction for the second three, and the state having an interest in the final three months. What this says, quite frankly, is that life begins at six to seven months.
And there are bad arguments on both sides. I have not (on this board during this post) called anyone who has had or who is pro-choice a 'murderer.' While I believe it is the taking of a life, I also realize that many people who do it either do not hold that view or they are not aware of it. Many, if not most, are teenagers who are doing (usually) what someone else (her father or mother, best friend, or partner in knocking her up) tells them is the right thing.
Now here's another bad argument. "Women will be forced into back alley coat hanger abortions." Oh spare me the crap!!!
Let me get this straight:
1. The woman CHOOSES to have sex.
2. The woman CHOOSES whom to have sex with.
Note: rape is irrelevant here since most people including activists allow for abortion via rape
3. The woman CHOOSES whether or not to use birth control
And then I'm a Neanderthal simply because I believe actions have consequences. Okay, birth control doesn't always work, I agree. Guess what? Seatbelts don't always work, either.
In the typical abortion case, the female has already made TWO choices (and many times THREE), yet we will rid ourselves of an inconvenience like a human baby and call anyone who opposes it 'anti-choice.'
I don't think pro-death or anti-choice are very edifying terms, either. But again, something is wrong when a woman can kill her unborn child at eight weeks because 'it's not viable,' but it's murder when anyone else does it. I mean, the baby is either alive or it's not, it doesn't depend on who kills it or makes that choice.
While I do not agree with you regarding this issue, may I at least say that there is some logic to your position despite my opposition to it (as opposed to fosterkeats' usual emotional blah blah blah).
By the way, JThomas,the crack about Knoxville left me in stitches, so there is some humor to be found even here.
Now, in terms of 'changing anyone's mind,' no that rarely (if ever) happens. So I have a compromise proposal for you:
Since the argument seems to center on whether or not the unborn child (fetus is usually used to escape the question of whether or not it is a life) is actually a living being, why don't we have the women who seek abortions take it out to the garbage when finished?
After all, let's say I'm the doc. I just say, "Hey, it's your body now go dispose of it." And I give her a see through bag with what's left.
I have a hunch that would surely change a lot of people's minds (although obviously too late for the aborted child).
There's something else I want to point out here. Most people who have a position on this have not even read Roe v.Wade. I have. So let me discuss one of the points the Supreme Court talked about - and then legislated for the rest of us.
The SC determined abortion to be legal because they noted that different religions, science, and philosophy could not agree on the question of when life begins. That, may I add, is a very defensible position for the court.
The problem, however, is they prescribed a remedy that, in essence, declares when life begins. They determined abortion to be legal without restriction for the first three months, limited restriction for the second three, and the state having an interest in the final three months. What this says, quite frankly, is that life begins at six to seven months.
And there are bad arguments on both sides. I have not (on this board during this post) called anyone who has had or who is pro-choice a 'murderer.' While I believe it is the taking of a life, I also realize that many people who do it either do not hold that view or they are not aware of it. Many, if not most, are teenagers who are doing (usually) what someone else (her father or mother, best friend, or partner in knocking her up) tells them is the right thing.
Now here's another bad argument. "Women will be forced into back alley coat hanger abortions." Oh spare me the crap!!!
Let me get this straight:
1. The woman CHOOSES to have sex.
2. The woman CHOOSES whom to have sex with.
Note: rape is irrelevant here since most people including activists allow for abortion via rape
3. The woman CHOOSES whether or not to use birth control
And then I'm a Neanderthal simply because I believe actions have consequences. Okay, birth control doesn't always work, I agree. Guess what? Seatbelts don't always work, either.
In the typical abortion case, the female has already made TWO choices (and many times THREE), yet we will rid ourselves of an inconvenience like a human baby and call anyone who opposes it 'anti-choice.'
I don't think pro-death or anti-choice are very edifying terms, either. But again, something is wrong when a woman can kill her unborn child at eight weeks because 'it's not viable,' but it's murder when anyone else does it. I mean, the baby is either alive or it's not, it doesn't depend on who kills it or makes that choice.
Originally posted by BamaJeff:
I bet it gives you a big thrill each time a woman kills her unborn. You are an example of EVERYTHING that is wrong in America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Jeff, what's wrong with America right now is that too many people like you view issues purely in right/wrong, black/white modes.
Too many people on this board take the position of "all liberals [or, to be more accurate, all non-conservatives] think this way about this issue."
But even though some would prefer to think otherwise, life's choices aren't always that neat.
Let me offer an example.
About fourteen years ago, two of my best friends had a baby. Shortly after birth the girl was diagnosed with an incurable genetic defect. The prognosis was 100% fatal.
Let me repeat that. 100% fatal. No chance that the baby would survive more than a few months.
For the next three months, they had to watch their baby die.
A year later, they got pregnant again. Because the syndrome that killed their first child was hereditary, after the first trimester, they tested the fetus for the defect. They steeled themselves for a choice they prayed they wouldn't have to make.
Fortunately, the test came back negative, and Sean is a wonderful little boy.
But if it had come back positive, no feeling person could condemn them if they chose to terminate the pregnancy.
It's nice to stand up and say that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. You can point to the concession and pat yourself on the back for your compassion.
But that fact is that life will not be contained that neatly. There are situations that do not fall into that narrowly proscribed areas in which abortion, though a tragic choice, may yet be a valid choice.
You can point to the concession and pat yourself on the back for your compassion.
Is exactly what you have done here. I am convinced however that this issue cant be solved by calling people murders etc. I am opposed to abortion but chose to try and reason with others. The facts are, life begins at conception (where else can it BEGIN), Old white men and women of all colors pass all kinds of laws telling men and women what they can and cant do with their bodies all the time. Ever heard of prostitution, or drug use? Why people hold abortion to a different standard should escape me but sadly it doesn't. The premises of the "pro choice" side simply are not logical. So if life begins at conception ( it cant START in the middle) and the precedent is clear on the regulation of our bodies here and there by govt, what other argument can be made. In JTs point, he is pointing out that sometimes choices have to be made out of necessity even if they are tragic. I understand his point but logically it breaks down (imho) in its premise. That things are all black and white or all right and wrong. When the issue is deciding to take a bullet for a fellow soldier, I see gray. When it is deciding the fate of a helpless child, born or unborn, there can be only right or wrong. Take rape as an exception. This too is tragic but to take the life of the child, who really had nothing to do with the rape, really only compounds the tragedy because now there are two victims. I know this sounds harsh but it is the truth. So it my mind abortion can only make sense if:
One refuses to acknowledge what the word Begins means when referring to "when life begins"
One refuses to think a baby is more of a person 5 seconds after he is born than before.
One refuses to accept that peoples activities with their bodies is already regulated and was before abortion was created as a right.
It is if all of ones reasoning skills have to be turned off.
As for the couple that had the baby that was born with a terminal illness. I say, what happened to love and real compassion? I mean this rhetorically. This couple needs love and comfort and prayer and friendship and understanding. I am telling ya it seems we have a harder time putting our pets to sleep than to take a childs life.
Which leads me to the most illogical side of all. If it is illegal to take a childs life, like the wacko woman that drowned her kids in the tub, why is it ok to do it to over 1 million children with the only distinction is one is born and the other would have been?
BTW I am glad Sean made it into the world. I hope he has a great life.
I bet it gives you a big thrill each time a woman kills her unborn. You are an example of EVERYTHING that is wrong in America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Jeff, what's wrong with America right now is that too many people like you view issues purely in right/wrong, black/white modes.
Too many people on this board take the position of "all liberals [or, to be more accurate, all non-conservatives] think this way about this issue."
But even though some would prefer to think otherwise, life's choices aren't always that neat.
Let me offer an example.
About fourteen years ago, two of my best friends had a baby. Shortly after birth the girl was diagnosed with an incurable genetic defect. The prognosis was 100% fatal.
Let me repeat that. 100% fatal. No chance that the baby would survive more than a few months.
For the next three months, they had to watch their baby die.
A year later, they got pregnant again. Because the syndrome that killed their first child was hereditary, after the first trimester, they tested the fetus for the defect. They steeled themselves for a choice they prayed they wouldn't have to make.
Fortunately, the test came back negative, and Sean is a wonderful little boy.
But if it had come back positive, no feeling person could condemn them if they chose to terminate the pregnancy.
It's nice to stand up and say that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. You can point to the concession and pat yourself on the back for your compassion.
But that fact is that life will not be contained that neatly. There are situations that do not fall into that narrowly proscribed areas in which abortion, though a tragic choice, may yet be a valid choice.
You can point to the concession and pat yourself on the back for your compassion.
Is exactly what you have done here. I am convinced however that this issue cant be solved by calling people murders etc. I am opposed to abortion but chose to try and reason with others. The facts are, life begins at conception (where else can it BEGIN), Old white men and women of all colors pass all kinds of laws telling men and women what they can and cant do with their bodies all the time. Ever heard of prostitution, or drug use? Why people hold abortion to a different standard should escape me but sadly it doesn't. The premises of the "pro choice" side simply are not logical. So if life begins at conception ( it cant START in the middle) and the precedent is clear on the regulation of our bodies here and there by govt, what other argument can be made. In JTs point, he is pointing out that sometimes choices have to be made out of necessity even if they are tragic. I understand his point but logically it breaks down (imho) in its premise. That things are all black and white or all right and wrong. When the issue is deciding to take a bullet for a fellow soldier, I see gray. When it is deciding the fate of a helpless child, born or unborn, there can be only right or wrong. Take rape as an exception. This too is tragic but to take the life of the child, who really had nothing to do with the rape, really only compounds the tragedy because now there are two victims. I know this sounds harsh but it is the truth. So it my mind abortion can only make sense if:
One refuses to acknowledge what the word Begins means when referring to "when life begins"
One refuses to think a baby is more of a person 5 seconds after he is born than before.
One refuses to accept that peoples activities with their bodies is already regulated and was before abortion was created as a right.
It is if all of ones reasoning skills have to be turned off.
As for the couple that had the baby that was born with a terminal illness. I say, what happened to love and real compassion? I mean this rhetorically. This couple needs love and comfort and prayer and friendship and understanding. I am telling ya it seems we have a harder time putting our pets to sleep than to take a childs life.
Which leads me to the most illogical side of all. If it is illegal to take a childs life, like the wacko woman that drowned her kids in the tub, why is it ok to do it to over 1 million children with the only distinction is one is born and the other would have been?
BTW I am glad Sean made it into the world. I hope he has a great life.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Quote from Fosterkeats "you make no sense"
Hey Foster, do you think you're born gay, cause if you do it strongly makes sense. I don't believe we are born gay but...
You are either born man or woman, gay or straight, right?
You say men can't argue on abortion because they are men, I say Heterosexuals can't argue on Homosexual issues because they are heterosexual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Quote from Fosterkeats "you make no sense"
Hey Foster, do you think you're born gay, cause if you do it strongly makes sense. I don't believe we are born gay but...
You are either born man or woman, gay or straight, right?
You say men can't argue on abortion because they are men, I say Heterosexuals can't argue on Homosexual issues because they are heterosexual.
Should we make liver transplant patient throw out their old liver? It isn't the doctor's job to make the patient feel guilty for their mistakes.
I have no problems at all with saying that all abortions are legal.
I know that we have all made bad choices in our lives. Are we to tell the alcoholic that he can't get a new liver because he made a mistake by drinking so much? I am sure that he feels guilty for that. I am sure that many women feel guilty for having abortions. That is a personal choice that women make and they have to live with their decision. It isn't up to you or I to judge or decide the consequences for them.
I can see that argument if you believe that it is wrong to kill any living creature at all. A fly is alive, yet we still swat it. A deer is alive, yet we still shoot it. Yes the fetus is "alive", but that doesn't mean that it is a sentient human being. When does the soul enter the body? I know what I believe. I am sure that it is different from your beliefs.
Bamaboy, if you show me a man who has had an abortion, I will agree with you that it isn't a women's issue. Because of the biology of things, only women have abortions. That makes it a women's issue. Likewise, if I was to decide to have a vasectomy, no one has the right to tell me not to. Well, other than my future wife, but the final decision would rest with me because of the biology of things. The decision to have a vasectomy is not something that women have to deal with.
[This message has been edited by CrimsonChuck (edited 05-03-2004).]
To abandon the abortion debate and the gay marriage debate would be fine with me... if only the moral avengers in here wold do the same thing...
The only people who should rightfully(under our constitution)be debating abortion are the expecting woman and her doctor... end of story, thank you for playing the Family Feud...
Your argument about straight people debating gay marriage is also correct in my eyes... I am not gay, but to see the discrimination of the Bush administration towards gay people makes me sick... Gay people don't bother me, but they obviously bother the bible-beating righties... if someone wants to be gay and marry the same sex, what affect does it have on me??? ZERO... I could care less...
Whether someone is gay at birth is irrelevant, but I do think being gay has become really "trendy" of late, and more people are "turning" gay now more than ever when a few years ago they might have given the opposite sex "another cance"...
[This message has been edited by fosterkeats (edited 05-03-2004).]
You just summed it up eloquently, Chuck:
I am sure that many women feel guilty for having abortions.
REPLY:
Why do you think that is? There's only ONE reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS A HUMAN BEING!!!
Your comparison of an alcoholic with a liver as opposed to an OPTIONAL surgery is apples and oranges on several levels.
1. As I stated, one involves an optional surgery; most liver surgery for alcohol induced hepatitis necessary to save the individual's life (and you will find most pro-life advocates stopping their opposition here).
2. As far as disposing of it, again, you're comparing an optional surgery with a compulsory one.
3. Regarding regretting it, again, nobody is FORCING anyone to have an abortion, so there shouldn't be any regret. Unless, of course, it's a human being.
Now here's something else you write:
I can see that argument if you believe that it is wrong to kill any living creature at all. A fly is alive, yet we still swat it. A deer is alive, yet we still shoot it. Yes the fetus is "alive", but that doesn't mean that it is a sentient human being. When does the soul enter the body? I know what I believe. I am sure that it is different from your beliefs.
REPLY:
In other words, you just did it again. I am saying it is inconsistent to say that it's okay for the woman to kill the child but it's murder for anyone else. You are saying that if I kill flies, I'm as bad as the abortion recipient. Aside from the fact that would make masturbation murder (isn't a sperm alive?), your argument is frankly nothing more than saying people are no different than animals.
So let's apply your logic across the board:
1. Flies can vote.
2. Flies can get a driver's license.
3. Flies are protected by OSHA
We could go on forever, but I think the point was made.
As far as a 'sentinet being,' I'm not sure what you mean. But I do know this: if you wish to argue that 'independent survival' is necessary to qualify as a life, can you honestly say that a newborn who has nobody helping nurse it or feed it can survive on its own?
I am sure that many women feel guilty for having abortions.
REPLY:
Why do you think that is? There's only ONE reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS A HUMAN BEING!!!
Your comparison of an alcoholic with a liver as opposed to an OPTIONAL surgery is apples and oranges on several levels.
1. As I stated, one involves an optional surgery; most liver surgery for alcohol induced hepatitis necessary to save the individual's life (and you will find most pro-life advocates stopping their opposition here).
2. As far as disposing of it, again, you're comparing an optional surgery with a compulsory one.
3. Regarding regretting it, again, nobody is FORCING anyone to have an abortion, so there shouldn't be any regret. Unless, of course, it's a human being.
Now here's something else you write:
I can see that argument if you believe that it is wrong to kill any living creature at all. A fly is alive, yet we still swat it. A deer is alive, yet we still shoot it. Yes the fetus is "alive", but that doesn't mean that it is a sentient human being. When does the soul enter the body? I know what I believe. I am sure that it is different from your beliefs.
REPLY:
In other words, you just did it again. I am saying it is inconsistent to say that it's okay for the woman to kill the child but it's murder for anyone else. You are saying that if I kill flies, I'm as bad as the abortion recipient. Aside from the fact that would make masturbation murder (isn't a sperm alive?), your argument is frankly nothing more than saying people are no different than animals.
So let's apply your logic across the board:
1. Flies can vote.
2. Flies can get a driver's license.
3. Flies are protected by OSHA
We could go on forever, but I think the point was made.
As far as a 'sentinet being,' I'm not sure what you mean. But I do know this: if you wish to argue that 'independent survival' is necessary to qualify as a life, can you honestly say that a newborn who has nobody helping nurse it or feed it can survive on its own?
You just summed it up eloquently, Chuck:
I am sure that many women feel guilty for having abortions.
REPLY:
Why do you think that is? There's only ONE reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS A HUMAN BEING!!!
Your comparison of an alcoholic with a liver as opposed to an OPTIONAL surgery is apples and oranges on several levels.
1. As I stated, one involves an optional surgery; most liver surgery for alcohol induced hepatitis necessary to save the individual's life (and you will find most pro-life advocates stopping their opposition here).
2. As far as disposing of it, again, you're comparing an optional surgery with a compulsory one.
3. Regarding regretting it, again, nobody is FORCING anyone to have an abortion, so there shouldn't be any regret. Unless, of course, it's a human being.
Now here's something else you write:
I can see that argument if you believe that it is wrong to kill any living creature at all. A fly is alive, yet we still swat it. A deer is alive, yet we still shoot it. Yes the fetus is "alive", but that doesn't mean that it is a sentient human being. When does the soul enter the body? I know what I believe. I am sure that it is different from your beliefs.
REPLY:
In other words, you just did it again. I am saying it is inconsistent to say that it's okay for the woman to kill the child but it's murder for anyone else. You are saying that if I kill flies, I'm as bad as the abortion recipient. Aside from the fact that would make masturbation murder (isn't a sperm alive?), your argument is frankly nothing more than saying people are no different than animals.
So let's apply your logic across the board:
1. Flies can vote.
2. Flies can get a driver's license.
3. Flies are protected by OSHA
We could go on forever, but I think the point was made.
As far as a 'sentinet being,' I'm not sure what you mean. But I do know this: if you wish to argue that 'independent survival' is necessary to qualify as a life, can you honestly say that a newborn who has nobody helping nurse it or feed it can survive on its own?
I am sure that many women feel guilty for having abortions.
REPLY:
Why do you think that is? There's only ONE reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS A HUMAN BEING!!!
Your comparison of an alcoholic with a liver as opposed to an OPTIONAL surgery is apples and oranges on several levels.
1. As I stated, one involves an optional surgery; most liver surgery for alcohol induced hepatitis necessary to save the individual's life (and you will find most pro-life advocates stopping their opposition here).
2. As far as disposing of it, again, you're comparing an optional surgery with a compulsory one.
3. Regarding regretting it, again, nobody is FORCING anyone to have an abortion, so there shouldn't be any regret. Unless, of course, it's a human being.
Now here's something else you write:
I can see that argument if you believe that it is wrong to kill any living creature at all. A fly is alive, yet we still swat it. A deer is alive, yet we still shoot it. Yes the fetus is "alive", but that doesn't mean that it is a sentient human being. When does the soul enter the body? I know what I believe. I am sure that it is different from your beliefs.
REPLY:
In other words, you just did it again. I am saying it is inconsistent to say that it's okay for the woman to kill the child but it's murder for anyone else. You are saying that if I kill flies, I'm as bad as the abortion recipient. Aside from the fact that would make masturbation murder (isn't a sperm alive?), your argument is frankly nothing more than saying people are no different than animals.
So let's apply your logic across the board:
1. Flies can vote.
2. Flies can get a driver's license.
3. Flies are protected by OSHA
We could go on forever, but I think the point was made.
As far as a 'sentinet being,' I'm not sure what you mean. But I do know this: if you wish to argue that 'independent survival' is necessary to qualify as a life, can you honestly say that a newborn who has nobody helping nurse it or feed it can survive on its own?
Selma, I have been enjoying this debate. I didn't have the time to reply yesterday.
It isn't all black and white though. Some of them "know" that it is a human being. Some of them "know" that is isn't. Most of them probably think that it is somewhere in the middle. That is a personal belief that each woman must take into account, if they are considering an abortion.
First of all, there may be situations where an abortion really isn't optional. A couple posters in this thread gave us some examples of this (like if the fetus is condemned to suffer if it is brought to full term).
However, that really wasn't the point that I was trying to get across. My apologies for not being clear. I was trying to compare the situation of an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant verses a woman who accidently got pregnant. Both of them made a mistake. Is the alcoholic not "killing" someone innocent because he is using a liver that could be used to go to someone else, who did not abuse their liver so much?
And I am saying that it isn't inconsistant at all. This "child" is part of her body. It isn't part of your body or my body, so we don't have any say. Likewise, it is a crime for you to cut off my finger. If I cut off my own finger intentionally, it may be stupid though not illegal.
I am not saying that I believe that. I am saying though that if you believe that killing a fetus is wrong, then what about swatting a fly or shooting a deer? Both the fly and the deer are at a more advanced state than the fetus. Furthermore, the difference between animals and people is that people have the capability to reason. The fetus doesn't have that. Of course, it has the capability to have that if left alone to develop. Then again, so would a sperm and an egg. So now are you saying masterbation is murder?
It isn't independent survival. Again, our fly can survive independently. It is the ability to make choices and have free will. A fly doesn't have free will. A fetus doesn't have free will. A fully developed person does.
[This message has been edited by CrimsonChuck (edited 05-05-2004).]
It isn't all black and white though. Some of them "know" that it is a human being. Some of them "know" that is isn't. Most of them probably think that it is somewhere in the middle. That is a personal belief that each woman must take into account, if they are considering an abortion.
First of all, there may be situations where an abortion really isn't optional. A couple posters in this thread gave us some examples of this (like if the fetus is condemned to suffer if it is brought to full term).
However, that really wasn't the point that I was trying to get across. My apologies for not being clear. I was trying to compare the situation of an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant verses a woman who accidently got pregnant. Both of them made a mistake. Is the alcoholic not "killing" someone innocent because he is using a liver that could be used to go to someone else, who did not abuse their liver so much?
And I am saying that it isn't inconsistant at all. This "child" is part of her body. It isn't part of your body or my body, so we don't have any say. Likewise, it is a crime for you to cut off my finger. If I cut off my own finger intentionally, it may be stupid though not illegal.
I am not saying that I believe that. I am saying though that if you believe that killing a fetus is wrong, then what about swatting a fly or shooting a deer? Both the fly and the deer are at a more advanced state than the fetus. Furthermore, the difference between animals and people is that people have the capability to reason. The fetus doesn't have that. Of course, it has the capability to have that if left alone to develop. Then again, so would a sperm and an egg. So now are you saying masterbation is murder?
It isn't independent survival. Again, our fly can survive independently. It is the ability to make choices and have free will. A fly doesn't have free will. A fetus doesn't have free will. A fully developed person does.
[This message has been edited by CrimsonChuck (edited 05-05-2004).]
Fosterkeats, consider yourself exposed as a fraud.
When you won't answer a question directly, you are nothing more than a fraud.
RTR!
When you won't answer a question directly, you are nothing more than a fraud.
RTR!
Part of me thinks that might not be a bad idea. While I think abortion should remain legal, it should not be done lightly or on a whim.
It also reminds me of the movie version of The Cider House Rules, in which the only way we ever know an abortion has been performed is a long shot of Homer (Tobey Maguire's character) carrying a small bucket out to the incinerator.
Their stance has generally be interpreted as being based on the viability of the fetus--the point at which the fetus can survive on its own. An additional problem that has created is that medical advances have made that definition a moving target.
------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
In the immortal words of Monty Python:
"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great;
When a sperm gets wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God will make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found."
------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
i like the idea of having women who have abortions dispose of the fetus...
This argument is not going to be won or changed in the courts. It won't be won or changed in congress. AND, it won't be won or changed by the President.
The only ways to reduce the number of abortions is:
1) change the hearts/minds of those getting abortions so that those having unprotected sex think deeply about the consequences (disposing the fetus, etc)
2) encourage kids to not have unprotected sex / encourage abstinance.
There is virtually no stigma attached anymore to having a child out of wedlock. That alone use to be a deterrent to getting pregnant (and was also a cause for many abortions).
The key is making girls AND guys understand what they're doing and that it's not just some "procedure" the doctor does to you.
This argument is not going to be won or changed in the courts. It won't be won or changed in congress. AND, it won't be won or changed by the President.
The only ways to reduce the number of abortions is:
1) change the hearts/minds of those getting abortions so that those having unprotected sex think deeply about the consequences (disposing the fetus, etc)
2) encourage kids to not have unprotected sex / encourage abstinance.
There is virtually no stigma attached anymore to having a child out of wedlock. That alone use to be a deterrent to getting pregnant (and was also a cause for many abortions).
The key is making girls AND guys understand what they're doing and that it's not just some "procedure" the doctor does to you.
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Good luck dealing with a pandemic, depending on this administration...'- TIDE-HSV
Replies: 8K -
Latest threads
-
ESPN: 5 Buckeyes, Simpson among 16 draft attendees- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: IU still has 'chip on our shoulder' after CFP crown
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NC State men recount trainer's alleged sexual abuse
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Coaches, GMs weigh in on SEC's top newcomers
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 1
-
ESPN: With Venables' urging, Golding to run Ole Miss' D
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Reports: NCAA to discuss 5-year eligibility model
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0