Monty,
I referred to the “poor bastard” about to be executed because thats how the protesters would have felt. If you have read my earlier post you would know that I think we execute about 1/10 of the bastards that need it.
Everyone else,
forget the “crime” or “against the law” stuff. moral right has nothing to do with the law.
this thread is about peoples convictions. It would seem people have to get worked up on a topic to get passionate about it. all the anti-abortionist know that a thousand babies are being killed everyday. and what do they do? they write a letter (if that) and vote for conservatives every other year or so. Thats why I equated it to the idea of turning in 1 week old babies to be killed if the mother decides she doesn’t want the baby. If that became the law then would people be just as passive.
I agree that it would be against the creed of anti-abortionist to bomb a building because it is a violent act and could hurt somebody. but what about dumping loads of concrete at the door to make the building unusable or laying in front of the door or … people are just too busy to do anything.
please note that I am not advocating for any action . as a matter of fact I am not arquing for/against abortion. I am just musing on people’s laziness/apathy.
John “mary did you hear that the new abortion clinic opened yesterday?”
mary "no "
john “it says here that they can handle 100 abortions a day”
mary “thats terrible. what do you want to do for dinner tonite?”
justin I disagree. It is moral rights that sometimes
brings in new laws. Morals=Laws. Example
Person lacks morals of respecting other’s property and
decides to break and enter, and steal. Now this is a law
issue because of morals or lacking there of.
Abortion. Is good idea for some moralistic law abiding
citizen. She has been ill and can’t have anymore kids.
This person I knew, had low moral standards and did not
respect her life or her 3 babies whom she aborted but she
never took any birth control steps. She wound up having the fourth child, because she couldn’t have anymore abortions.
She eventually said she was going to put it up for adoption, or sell it. The last story she told me was the baby had died in an auto crash. I don’t believe her because the day before the crash was suppose to happen, My friend was harried, agitated and despondant like she had to have cash right now HURRY!
This woman was a social deviant, no morals, or respect for life, and she wound up committing a felony, possibly murder.
Hence Morals=Laws
Hmm… So, the crime of murder is defined by the motive for the act? Fascinating.
I think that every woman who has an abortion does so for the same reason – she does not want to be pregnant. You, Mr Carpenter, should make up you mind as to whether a woman has the right to not be pregnant.
There are reasons why people are not outraged by every cause against some form of injustice. How could we keep functioning if every concern was worming through our brains? We selectivly filter out many things that we don’t like in the effort to avoid mental breakdown. IANAD, but I am pretty sure that there are people who have ruined their lives by being obsessed with things beyond their control.
I know that when I get a phone call to contribute to the fight against the heartbreak of psoriosis, I won’t.
TYMP,
this thread is defining abortion as killing. not choosing to be pregnant anymore than killing a 1 week old baby would be choosing not to be a mother.
Mr. Carpender,
I don’t believe laws are the result of the morals of a society. its much more political than that. re: prohibition
As reqards to the woman you described, any problems with sterilizing a woman with her second abortion?
Since our laws make abortion legal, and since wiser heads than most of us made the laws in the courts legalizing abortion, I say no. Because one does not agree with the laws, one does not have the right to force one’s religious beliefs on others with violence.
You choose to define abortion as killing. The fact that your definition differs from that of the Supreme Court and the majority of our nation’s population is likely to be the cause of much difficulty for you.
Another source of trouble for you might be the fact that you believe yourself to have some say in determining the reproductive rights of others. You have just dropped the idea of sterilizing women who do not behave in accordance with your brand of morality in the same thread wherein you suggest terrorist actions. Just what the hell are you smoking?
Ok now this is a lot. My head is spinning.
I believe women should have abortions if their lives are
in danger and the fetus is the problem. I believe the women
who are raped and want an abortion should have it.
I do NOT believe that sexually loose women who choose
not to use contraceptives should be allowed to at a whim
abort their babies, time after time, because of their
loose responsible natures. This to me is Murder in the First Degree, because the women and the man know the end
result of their actions is going to result in the termination of a living human being. The being growing inside of her is not going to be a roach, bird, fish, lion, etc it is a human being.
Women who demand all the sexual freedom they want, until their eyeballs rot out of their heads better
use the male condoms, female condoms, the ring, loop, special juice, and whatever else they can throw up there to make sure they don’t get pregnant.
If they honestly try not to get pregnant, and still do, then I am all for them aborting if they don’t want it. (but I really don’t agree) Now I need to lie down. :o
This is really not my scenario but it reads like a book without the words. Just look at the pictures.
tymp,
I define stopping a living organism from living as killing. I don’t know another word for it. you call it “choice”. I guess the brits call it “snuff”.
now I haven’t gotten into a discussion re: pro-abortion vs pro-life. I support abortion but think that it is killing. that is my quandry. but that is outside the scope of this thread.
Justin, barring the exceedingly bizarre, I’d respond “No” for reasons already given. There are innumerable ways to prevent abortions from occurring without the resort to violence.
Not apropos your OP, but on the general topic: It has never ceased to amaze me that there are “right-to-life” activists who believe that that right ends at birth.
Mr. Carpenter: It’s a truly fascinating world you live in. Do you really believe that the only women faced with the question of whether to abort or carry a child full term fall into those two categories? What about a married couple who determined that they had already had all the children they could afford and care for (whether that be eight, four, one, or none), who use birth control to continue their marital relations – and it fails? What about the chaste young girl of 14 who gives in to her boyfriend’s pressurings, with the obvious result? And your choice of words is definitely slanted.
Over the last thirty years, I have known several young women who became pregnant. Most were delighted, as were their husbands. Those who, for one reason or other, were not, thought long and hard before making a tough moral decision as to whether to carry the child to term. The “sexually loose women” who repeatedly gets pregnant and aborts is, I believe, left over from the cancelled sequel to “The Wizard of Oz” – to judge from the straw protruding from under her garments and at all her seams.
I understand that this is your point of view, as you state. However, the courts have adjudged otherwise. The “crime against nature” is a felony carrying a maximum 20 year sentence in my state – but unfortunately they’re referring to sodomy, not gross pollution – much as I’d prefer they use it to prosecute the slimy plutocrats whose hog-waste lagoons ruptured and polluted several hundred square miles after Hurricane Floyd.
It’s my view that the rights of human beings accrue to the child when it becomes an independent, viable organism – and that it has certain rights prior to this time, but not necessarily the full gamut of right to life trumping any decision by the parent. I’ve analogized the situation to the following: Imagine a quadraplegic man without medical insurance, requiring 24-hour-a-day care, with a single daughter providing it. If she fails to take care of him, he will die. But I trust that you would agree with me that, while her sole moral choice is to provide that care, nonetheless it is her free choice, and not something that a court can or should compel. I feel the same regarding a young woman who has (inadvertently?) become responsible for nurturing within herself an organism that will become a human baby. She has one valid moral choice, but she must be left to make that choice.
Blowing up a building, even if it is empty, is an act of violence. Do we really have to condone violence as a means of achieving our political/moral goals? If you don’t like abortion, write articles about it, organise a rally, vote for pro-lifers, whatever. There are enough acts of violence in the world.
As an analogy, if you belived that Catholics (or Mormons, or Rastafarians, or whatever) were putting their immortal souls and the souls of their children in jeapardy by going to their church, would you blow up the church? Or pour cement in front of their church to prevent them from going in?
It boils down to “Do you have the obligation to stop people from doing what you think is morally wrong?” My answer, unless it involves immediate physical threat to me or others, is clearly no.
The issue gets murky when people say that abortion is an immediate threat to someone. I feel, and the courts have ruled, that there is no “someone” to threaten until late in the pregnancy. Until and unless that changes, I stick by the answer that it is wrong to impose your will on others.
Actually, I was thinking of that point as well, even though I didn’t specifically raise it.
In any event, this demonstrates the fallacy of saying, “Pro-lifers don’t really believe that abortion is wrong, since they don’t feel more outraged at that issue.”
justinh, I find your post, and subsequent replies, quite passive agressive. One simple request - do YOU believe its morally wrong that “all the anti-abortionist know that a thousand babies are being killed everyday. and what do they do? they write a letter (if that) and vote for conservatives every other year or so”? If so, do you have a personal issue that You are willing to go to jail for via social change terrorism? Or are you blowing smoke for arguments sake?
Polycarp and everyone here. Passive aggressive or whatever the tone of our opinions are, they are opinions and everyone has them, and not everyone will agree. Some of these opinions will be numerous and heavy hitting enough to win a vote in the courts. At another time the decisions the courts give could reverse and favor other opinions. These opinions are thoughts formulated in our minds and our moralistic views compiled with our experiences and feelings help us to wonder how some people could act the way they do and “kill” a human lifeform. Others wonder that since this lifeform is not yet out of the womb the woman gets the greenlight to terminate it, even if she is a socio-path and sex fiend with no control over herself whatsoever and uses no contraception. (fixing sex fiends and other repeating law offenders is easy as 1-2-3!)*
It is destructive to bomb anything, and it is negative unless it is in selfdefense. We wish Bin Laden had a more positive outlook for his life and our country. I wish people, men and women would have more control over themselves sexually if they really don’t want to have children. (They already know what they want and what they can’t handle when they decide to “go-at-it”)
Lack of self control, when angry, or horny hurts society in the long run.
Social deviants–be they sexuality perverse and other law-breakers need to come to the newly instated laboratories popping up around the country. You go in voluntarily or by court order, and the doctors will do some hemispheric manipulations with a pair of tweezers and a scissor, and when all done the patient will come out brand new! No more of those nasty problems*
