I don’t think anyone in this fourm is advocating a “total freedom platform”. Dignan never stated (s)he supported suicide laws, so you can’t make the assumtion that (s)he is inconsistant.
What I AM advocating is a little common sense. The pro-choice veiw is not:
Killing babies, and as many as possible and as fast as possible.
Using abortion as a simple means of birth-control.
A godless plot to overturn the first admendment.
If legislation were passed to outlaw abortions for everyone, that would remove choice for everyone. Including the mothers who will die at childbirth, have been raped and become pregnant, have horribly mentally/physically deformed children who will live in pain and suffering for the whole of their lives, who cannot care for these babies and so abandon or kill them, whose chilren will die of starvation, whose children will be beaten to death in a foster home, whose children will be molested, and through whatever circumstances will bring children into the world that will suffer needlessly.
Is this why you want to “protect” the lives of the “unborn”?
To bring more desperate and hurting people into the world?
Please, please, please worship your God. Damn. Your statement is true for everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular beliefs. Why can’t you people understand that?
And class is not dismissed.
This is self-righteous. Your giving voice to your own conscience and little else.
It seems you think you live on the “greener” side of the fence. It may shock you to know that not all babies are born to stable middle-class families who will love and adore their children endlessly.
**
We agree on this, certainly. However, your adgenda is tied to your religious beliefs, as you stated above. So, your money is not where your mouth is, to coin a phrase.
Go for it, as long as the person you are going to kill falls under the same conditions as the slaves that beagledave have…
Yes, but science can prove that slaves could experience and feel pain, scientifically there is no debate over whether or not slaves were people/human. I don’t think the same can be said for embryos. I believe that brain waves aren’t picked up until 7 weeks after conception, so should abortions be totally illegal, or just illegal after 7 weeks. Should it be totally outlawed no matter what (rape, incest, health) and we just let things fall according to “God’s Plan”?
Should you, yeah I think you should have the choice, and didn’t Oregon legalize euthanasia in certain cases? I think you could say Kevorkian is protesting these laws. Last I heard, the Netherlands was on it’s way to legalizing euthanasia (yes, I know that this isn’t Holland).
Does this qualify as a slippery slope? If you have a problem with the two laws contradicting each other, then write your Congressman.
By Joe Cool:
What are you talking about? I have a feeling you misread my post. I was supporting the first amendment, if you had to pick one of us to give a “lesson” to over the first amendment, it should have been Jersey Diamond. I never said that I was going to do anything because of JerseyDiamond’s religion, she said that, “Respecting an opinion is something I can’t always do.” I was simply telling her that, despite her practice of not always respecting an opinion, she’s lucky that other people do respect her opinion, so she can worship and not worry about having her church burned down (yeah, I know that it still happens, but it’s against the law) or being rounded up into a concentration camp. You totally got the wrong idea from my post, funny how we can see things that aren’t there when we want to see them. Oh, and your reference to partial birth abortions, I haven’t said anything about that. I said I think people should do the adoption thing, but not everyone is in the perfect situation.
More by Joe Cool
Well, I am guessing that we are on opposite ends of just about every debate. I think you are the one that needs to read before you post, or read things clearly at least, ok?
Please let me know what exactly you think on this whole issue. You are obviously against abortion, but what about in the cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother? Because if you are a supporter of a total ban on abortion than it is forcing your morality on someone. Once again, the issue of when a fetus/zygote/baby/cell becomes human or able to experience pain or feel. Like I said, there is not a concrete answer, some believe it begins at conception (it looks like you fall into this category), others do not. Until there is a definite answer it would be forcing your morality on a person.
Some people would refer to an “unborn child” as a fetus, or in the earlier stages a zygote or a cell. To say that it’s up to you “reasonable adults” to stand up to the mother makes it look like you are implying that someone that has an abortion is unreasonable. That is ridiculous. I haven’t had an abortion (since I’m a guy) and I don’t know of anyone that has, but (and this is just a guess) I don’t imagine that it’s an easy choice (but at least they have it). There have got to be major psychological factors that come into the decision, you really sound like a jerk to imply that these women wanted to be in the position they’re in.
Maybe explain this to Jersey Diamond, by the looks of her posts she does think it is a religious issue. Note the numerous references to God being the final judge.
No where have I been hypocritical, you’re putting words into my mouth. I have not once stated that I’m against suicide, above I’ve said that I don’t think it should be illegal. Of course, I am against murder, but I am not relying on anyone else to keep me alive, and that is the case with a fetus it is relying on the mother to survive. And again, we get back to what you are debating, which is when does a fetus/cell/zygote become human.
Before anyone tries to further portray me as some kind of baby killing, anti-liberty, anti-constitution, anti-life, godless Nazi . . . I would prefer people didn’t need to get abortions, but if they feel they need to get an abortion, then I fully support their right to make the decision to get one. If abortion was outlawed, would people stop having abortions? Yeah, some of them would, but others would go and do the back-alley thing. That is dangerous, if we have the ability to do it cleanly and safely, then we should make that option available. Then again, if the heartless bitch was so irresponsible to get an unwanted pregnancy in the first place she deserves all the pain and suffering she gets for going to get the back alley abortion in the first place, right? :rolleyes:
If you believe God is the final judge, then let Him be the one to judge these terrible baby killers.
Very little needs to be said about this sort of statement. I would think Francis has not had to deal with these issues personally. I doubt he has carried around the physical after-effects of a brutal rape for nine-months (not to mention the mental trauma).
I was going to continue on this tact, but I suggest you read the article. It is amazing that this sort of thing is cited for support of the pro-life movement.
Well no one in this thread has called you a baby killing godless Nazi, although I note with interest that you portray the pro life position’s attitude to some pregnant women as “heartless bitches”…ironic.
I’ve left religion out of my arguments…but since you brought it up…I think God is the final judge of all actions, that doesn’t preclude a role for city/state/federal government on earth…
Minor nitpick here. Science cannot PROVE anything as subjective as who can feel pain. Science can make observations and develop explanations that cover the facts as observed.
My point is that it doesn’t matter whether anybody respects her opinion. She is not obligated to respect anybody’s opinion, nor is anyone else. Hitler had the opinion that Jews were lower than dogs and should be killed. Do you respect that opinion? Probably not. Neither do I. It’s the HAVING of an opinion that merits respect, not the opinion itself.
OK, here’s my platform, so to speak:
I am against abortion for convenience and as birth control.
If I had a pregnant wife, and her life was in danger from the pregnancy, I would not hesitate to request the abortion. Actually, that’s not true. I’d hesitate, but I’d do it. In other words, I’m not “FOR” abortion for medical reasons, but I feel it’s justified in some circumstances. In other words, it’s a gain/loss assessment. If one or the other will die, then sadly, I have to let go of the one who would be the lesser loss to me (the baby). I also believe however, that a “medical reason” restriction on abortion would be abused the same way people can convince their insurance to pay for a nose job or breast implants because they were done for medical reasons.
On rape, I’m not sure how I feel. I can imagine how a child could be seen as a reminder of a violent act, and how the mother was not given a choice in the matter. But I also agree that “Third, the unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger its mother’s life (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy). It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother. Hence, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn is an aggressor.” So I could accurately be called undecided on this one.
I know several women who have had abortions. Most of them are not happy about it, and some were severely traumatized by it. But on the other hand, I know a few who are as cavalier about getting abortions as they are about going to the movies. I know one who has had several abortions as a convenient substitute for birth control. (I’m really disgusted by this and we’re no longer friends)
I do feel that it is a religious issue in the sense that we are all accountable to God for our actions. However, that does not mean that there are not other issues that must be dealt with by civil authority, such as protecting the weak.
Gee, Cool, I am perfectly capable of fighting off your physical attack, and yet there are still a number of laws telling you you’re not allowed to attack me.
Duh.
Also, you don’t really believe that women who have had abortions fall into only two catagories, right? I mean, what if you are neither traumatized nor cavalier?
This debate never seems to go anywhere. I want to be reasonable and try to see the opposite point of view, but its hard when that POV is telling me that I shouldn’t be allowed to decide certain things for myself. I don’t wish to indiscriminantly murder people, or have a society which is lawless. To say that any of us do (or imply that we do) is only a means to submerge legitamate arguments in a sea of bullshit. Then the first one who gets tired of it leaves. That is not debate.
And to think that a relatively recent addition to the religious pantheon has the nerve to tell the other, more established religions that they are wrong, and that their higher powers aren’t “real.”
I know that no one has called me that, I said that people have tried to portry me as one. I made the comment about the pro lifers position because Joe “Cool” said that women that get abortions are unreasonable. The women are no more unreasonable for getting an abortion than you are for your (and his) views that she is wrong to get one. Do you deny that he was saying that women that get abortions are unreasonable?
Yes, but I was not referring to you when I made that comment, was I? Since I brought it up? You need to go back and read the entire thread, bud, you are sorely mistaken if you think that I brought it up. When you’re re-reading the thread, pay special attention to JerseyDiamond’s posts. After you read the entire thread, then tell me who brought God up first, wasn’t me.
By Joe “Cool”:
Yeah, I’d say it’s a “minor” nitpick, it looks a lot different when you take it out of the context of the rest of that sentence, which is . . .
Posted by me (Dignan):
See, when you take it out of context it looks a whole lot different.
By Joe “Cool”:
Really? Well my point is that I’m not the one that you needed to give a civics “lesson.”
Yeah, well people abuse guns, but you don’t want those banned. It’s that way with everything, no matter what, people will abuse things!!! Just because some people are abusive doesn’t mean that a practice should be unavailable to everyone because of some of the people. Besides, it’s legal to have it done, I don’t agree with someone just using it as birth control, but that’s their choice, and I believe that they should have their choice.
I think you need to go read blastfurnace’s post.
Hmmmm, this contradicts your earlier post of:
Thought it wasn’t about religion. :rolleyes: And you never answered my question about when the baby becomes human. You agree that, “Science cannot PROVE anything as subjective as who can feel pain. Science can make observations and develop explanations that cover the facts as observed.” So when does the fetus/cell/zygote become human? It couldn’t survive without the mother at those earlier stages.
It’s nice to see that you aren’t trying to defend your points that have been shot down, like your ridiculous arguments like this one: “For you to advocate abortion, you should also advocate the repeal of all laws restricting murder. After all, it’s my body. It’s my choice. If I choose to kill, so be it. Right?” You’re getting better about not putting words in my mouth, you’re still twisting them, so we still have a long way to go. Keep “ripping” into me, bud.
By EJsGirl:
Yeah, you know how there’s no middle ground. :rolleyes:
I have a brief respite from work, so I’d like to address the following.
Beckwith’s point is that, contrary to myth, abortion is NOT the only option for women who fear getting pregnant as a result of rape.
So what if only a few women pursue this option right now? That just means we have to educate them, promoting this as a quick and viable option to abortion.
Besides, even if this option did not exist, that would not be fatal to the pro-life stand. This option is just a tangential point. Beckwith presented numerous other arguments against the “What if the mother is raped?” scenario.
In fact, people who criticize Beckwith’s pro-life views almost invariably focus on these tangential issues – not recognizing that these minutiae are by no means fatal to Beckwith’s overall pro-life stance. For evidence, check out the reviews of his book, Politically Correct Death. Notice how the critics focus on such issues as fetal pain – even though Beckwith himself demonstrates that these issues are by no means fatal to the pro-life stance.
Which doesn’t refute Beckwith’s point that the innocent unborn is NOT an aggressor, and should not be treated as such.
Besides, Beckwith EXPLICITLY addressed that point, in that very same article. In fact, he acknowledged the trauma that a woman would face, while presenting several arguments against abortion as an option. Sure, he may not have been a rape victim himself, but he did address that issue in comprehensive and exacting detail.
You are going to have a real tough time convincing me that women that are raped should carry the baby to term, even if they don’t want to. If a woman is raped I think it should be her decision, and her decision alone on what to do with that unwanted pregnancy. You (and no one else) should be able to make a decision for her, you don’t have to carry around the reminder of what I’m sure is a very painful experience both physically and psychologically. After someone is raped who knows what their thought process is, but it probably isn’t real clear, and do you think their first thought is, “hurry up and make sure I don’t get pregnant!”
One of the problems I see in the pro-life stance in this thread is that the people that are pro-life don’t seem to realize that everyone is not in the perfect situation. Everyone is in a different situation, no one situation is the same. The woman in that position should be in control of what happens, she should have the right to choose. If you take that right away, some of those women will still go and have it done, but in a more dangerous manner. Not everyone has the money or time to do what it takes to raise a child, you want that child to grow up and be in pain and suffer its entire life? What if the baby is going to be born with a birth defect and the would-be-mother is single, if she decides to have an abortion because she doesn’t think she has the ability to raise a child with a defect? Yeah, there are some people that would go ahead and raise the child anyway, that’s their choice, and that choice should be available.
This is my point exactly, he has not been raped, he is not the one to have to carry around a reminder of something that the woman had wished never happened. I’m sure that there are cases when a woman can’t make it to the hospital in time, once again he is judging someone in a position that he is unfamiliar with.
Just because the option to have an abortion is there doesn’t mean that everyone has to use it, no one has to use it at all, but I believe that they should have a choice. It should not be your problem if someone decides they don’t want to have a baby. You aren’t in their situation, no matter how hard you try, you can’t know all of the factors, do not try to guess. If they feel that getting an abortion is justified, they should have that choice.
Another thing that really surprises me about the pro-life argument, this issue really should be decided upon by women. They are the one’s that have the baby, they are the one’s that have to deal with all of that. When guys (who can’t possibly have any idea what it’s like) just tell them, “nope, can’t do that” that is wrong. Let the women decide! Their bodies, their choice.
By JerseyDiamond:
Give me a break :rolleyes:. He has to twist and turn statements to even attempt to make a rebuttle. Couldn’t you come up with a response? I welcome any input to this discussion you might have, even if I disagree with it.
Dignan, you make me think you’re more of an idiot with every post. Do you intentionally misinterpret my words, or <insert pit-worthy language here> ?
I’ll deny it so dave doesn’t have to. I said, since you missed it, that using abortion as a lazy method of birth control is something I don’t accept, and reasonable people need to speak up to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
. . . Irrelevant. Because that’s precisely what I said it was. A MINOR NITPICK. That’s why I said it, because it’s MINOR. Are you so desperate for something to attack me with that you resort to THAT? sheesh. Some people.
Amazing. You see the light on this thread, but not on the other one. If you bothered to read my posts, you’d see that I answered you and that I acknowledge the need for abortions when the mother’s life is in danger. I do not, however, acknowledge any need for abortion when the reason is that somebody didn’t feel like wearing a rubber and doesn’t want to deal with the consequences of their actions. See the difference? I read your post and answered your question. Can’t you answer me without twisting my words?
I think you need to read MY posts. I told you that I’m somewhat undecided on the abortion in cases of rape issue.
No, it clarifies it and adds to it. Pay attention, dimwit.
If you were on life support, does that make you less than human? Since you can’t survive without the machines? The reason I never answered it is that I don’t know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. It’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
Ok, it hasn’t been “shot down”. If you can do whatever you want with your body, up to and including killing another human being because it inconveniences you, how is that different from letting me do anything I want with my body, up to and including killing another human being because he inconveniences me? My problem with you is that you cling to ideas without even knowing why, or even examining your position.
**
[/QUOTE]
Uh, no I don’t. That’s why I said MOST weren’t happy about it, SOME were traumatized, SOME were cavalier. So unless you’re aware of some other way of interpreting what I said, then we’re in agreement: Women who have abortions don’t fall into two categories.
No where in you post that I was referring to did you say that the unreasonable ones were the ones using it just as birth control. The post’s subject is, “further hijack”, since you don’t seem to remember what you said you should go back and read it. Here is the paragraph I was referring to:
There isn’t anything in there about the unreasonable ones are the ones that just use it as birth control. From this paragraph (and the entire post) you really come across as if someone has an abortion, then they are unreasonable for doing so.
You need to ask yourself that question. Some people, indeed.
I have read your posts, unlike you with mine, I read them completely. What about a situation where the baby is going to be born with defects, or if the woman is suddenly alone and doesn’t think she can handle the baby herself? I understand that you don’t support it as birth control, I would prefer women didn’t do that, but I think that they have the right to make their own choices.
Yes, it does contradict it. You said that it’s not about religion. Then right there you say that you do feel it’s a religious issue. Make up your mind. Reducing yourself to name calling, are you running out of what you constitute as valid arguments? Try staying cool, or maybe you need a new screenname.
Once again, I think you need to think about this yourself. In all of my posts I have said, I am not the one that is in that particular individual’s position, so I don’t think I’m in the position to judge them or tell them what to do.
By quixotic:
A short and sweet answer: because, I am not a woman, it should be each woman’s choice.
If you need a more in depth response, try going back and reading my posts. I say why I think a woman should have a choice in my other posts.
What? I’m not a woman, but for the sake of the argument let’s just say that I was a woman with the same views that I have as a guy. By being pro-choice I would not be imposing my morality on anyone. It would be their individual choice on whether they terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Read the rest of my posts, if you still have questions, fire away.
Not being a woman, by itself, does not render one’s opinion irrelevant in the abortion debate. Someone who is not a parent can still be against the abuse of children. Someone who did not own slaves could have been against slavery. (Or any other example previously mentioned in the countless abortion threads in this board’s archives.)
And there’s no need to trot out the distinctions previously mentioned regarding slaves residing outside the body of the person who owned them. That’s not the point I’m addressing. The point is that not having a direct stake in the argument (so to speak) does not BY ITSELF make someone incorrect.
Also, the fact that something is associated with religion does not take it out of play as far as social policy goes. That “Thou shalt not steal” is taught in Sunday School doesn’t mean it isn’t fair game as law–and, just like every other law on the books, those restricting stealing are acts that force someone’s morality on someone else, acts that restrict the choices of others.
You can argue that a given limitation of choice is unreasonable. But the simple fact that a choice has been removed is not, by that fact alone, morally or legally wrong. So it’s not helpful to simply point out that we are arguing about the possible restriction of a right/choice. No one, I think, would disagree with that. The argument ought to surround whether or not that restriction is unreasonable (and that has indeed been the debate made by some).
Yes, something can’t be argued in as social policy because someone’s religion directs him that this is “right.” But it’s not inconsistent at all, it seems to me, to argue something on a secular level while simultaneously admitting that the issue has religious implications personally. There IS overlap.
Besides, are women truly the only ones who can decide issues that affect women? If so, then we should toss out the Roe v. Wade decision. It was, after all, decided by a Supreme Court that was 100% male.
More importantly, being personally involved in an issue does not make someone more objective. It makes that person less objective. One could just as easily say that such issues are best decided by people with no personal stake in the matter.
The same holds for the whole rape issue, BTW. One could argue that if someone is faced with such a crisis, that person’s judgment would be clouded. Hence, we shouldn’t necessarily decide such issues based on what we would do if we were placed in such a situation.
First of all, that only addresses the issue of whether abortion should be legal. It doesn’t automatically make abortion morally acceptable.
And second, that has already been covered in a previous thread. Government statistics show that prior to Roe v Wade, the overwhelming majority of abortions were performed by licensed physicians, rather than back alley butchers. Planned Parenthood itself acknowledged this fact.
Nobody denies that parents can face some difficult circumstances; however, killing is NOT the solution. Doing what’s right isn’t always easy, but that doesn’t make the alternative acceptable. Sometimes, doing what’s right means that you do it even amidst difficult circumstances.
Naturally, we have a responsibility to assist parents in such dire straits. That is why there THOUSANDS of pro-life organizations in the USA that actively help parents in need. They recognize that abortion is a quick, easy way out, but that it’s not an acceptable option.
So should the morality of this situation only be decided by women who have been raped? By that token, the morality of child abuse should only be decided by child abuse victims… a ridiculous proposition.
Perhaps, but such situations are atypical. (There is a reason why they’re called EMERGENCY rooms, after all.) Moreover, that still wouldn’t make abortion justified, due to several reasons which Beckwith already provided (the humanity of the unborn, the question of whether it’s right to kill an innocent non-aggressor, etc).
See? This is what I’m talking about, when I say that Beckwith’s critics are forced to attack him on tangential issues – point which he cites for the sake of argument, but which are NOT fatal to the pro-life stand.
Again, irrelevant. Nobody says that they HAVE to get the semen flushed out. They can choose to do so, or they can choose to bear a possible pregnancy. Either way, abortion is not an acceptable option.
I sure hope you don’t feel that way about rapists and child abusers.
If I see someone savagely beating a six-year-old, you can be sure that I’ll object – regardless of the circumstances. Ditto for someone who seeks an abortion, EXCEPT in the rare and unusual situations where the mother’s life is in imminent danger (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy that refuses to miscarry).
