I suspect that is true. However, she supports the “right” to kill unborn children, and I do not. I’ll sleep easier with my position, thank you.
I support the right to not destroy a woman’s life, and potentially make that potential child’s life horrible. I’ll sleep easier with my position, thank you.
Updike, it is not a case that you have the moral highground. You think you have the moral highground. So do we. So does catsix. We don’t know who’s right - but we are pretty certain to absolutely sure that we are right (otherwise we wouldn’t hold that position). Pointing out that your beliefs are that your view is the more moral is, while an understandable attempt to guilt your opponents, will not work on opponents who are equally convinced of their own moral superiority (or equality) in this matter.
Let’s see, killing or not killing. It’s not difficult to figure out the moral highground, there.
Firstly, people dispute that it is killing. There have been posters in this thread that do not believe a foetus counts as alive ( I wouldn’t agree with them, but i’m just pointing out where others disagree).
Secondly, killing is not the only moral issue. Stealing is a moral issue, as is kidnapping, though neither of those impact on this point. However, pregancy can create two unhappy lives - and have wider repercussions - that are moral issues. In addition, the right of the person to choose what to do with their life (as enshrined in your constitution and our laws as much as the right to life is ) is also an important moral issue.
Once again, i’d like to point out the positions here;
Updike: I’m morally right. I shall sleep well with that belief.
Me: I’m morally right. I shall sleep well with that belief.
catsix: I’m morally right. I shall sleep well with that belief.
Anyone that’s sure on this issue: I’m morally right. I shall sleep well with that belief.
Thus, there’s no point saying these things. We believe that too.
Is there anyone here who is immorally right and would like to sleep with me?
No. I support the right to terminate a pregnancy before the period of viability. There’s no killing involved, because a fetus is not yet a human being at this point.
I do NOT consider a first trimester pregnancy a child.
I’m not certain that I’m morally right. I sleep well with the belief that I’ve made the best judgement that I can with the information available to me.
Yeah, that’s a better way of putting it. I agree with that. Good ol’ agnosticism. 
They are things, not people. They have no more rights than an equally large mass of bacteria, or tumor cells.
Abortion is responsible.
Being reduced to the status of an object, an incubator is a little more serious than most “situations”. Suffering permanent physical damage and emotional trauma ( if rape is bad, I’d expect this to be worse ) isn’t something that can be shrugged away.
For a fetus, they are nonexistent.
A barbaric attitude that reduces actual people to objects. If a lump of flesh is a person, then a person is just a lump of flesh; which rather explains how “pro-life” people behave towards actual people, instead of potential ones.
No, it’s not. Removing it is no different than harvesting the organs of the brain dead.
No, it’s the mind that makes us people, and the mind does not exist at conception; not even a little.
And I thought conservatives were so strong on sticking with their principles no matter what …
No, actually, it is not. Raising the child is responsible. Giving the child up for adoptiuon is responsible. Except in cases of rape, incest, a non viable fetus or a threat to the health of the mother, abortion is all about avoiding responsibility for your actions.
Now I am pro choice because I don’t feel that I have any right to tell a woman what to do WRT abortion, that’s completely and totally her decision, but let’s not kid ourselves about what is actually going on here in a vast majority of cases.
Look, if Superman can’t rip his own head off, the mere Governor of South Dakota can’t shove his head up his own ass.
And that’s my rational contribution to this debate … I am very afraid that at some point large numbers of people may be trying to settle the issue with bullets.
Why? Because the solution isn’t long term? The woman still has to live with the decision she made. I assure you, that’s very long term.
FTR, the whole concept of women who are in and out of abortion clinics and use abortion as a form of birth control is just that: a concept. It’s an unpleasant, physically and emotionally traumatic experience. One most women aren’t willing to repeat. I realize the whole “revolving door” thing is a key argument, but it isn’t especially factual.
I’m pro-abortion for various reasons, but one of them is that it will happen whether or not it is legal. I would rather a pregnant woman get a safe, legal abortion rather something performed in a back-alley, or god forbid, by a boyfriend with a baseball bat. Illicit abortions are much more likely to kill the mother as well as the fetus, thus defeating the whole “life is sacred” argument. Plus, I would hazard a guess that women with unwanted pregnancies are much more likely to commit suicide, especially if they have no other options available. It’s better to preserve the quality of life of one person, than to create two miserable people.
No, they are not things, and yes, you are even more rephrensible than catsix
I have no desire or intent to get seriously involved in this thread, but this line:
sent chills down my spine.
And I do have a question for the people who say that abortion is irresponsible: it seems to me that bringing a child to term and into the world, and being unable to care for it, is more irresponsible than preventing its creation in the first place. I’m honestly curious to hear thoughts on that.
Nonsense. When in doubt, a child should not be brought into the world. If the choice is between a bad childhood and never being born, it’s better to never be born.
Prove that a lump of mindless flesh is anything more than just that. And it’s the “pro-life” people who relentlessly spread misery, pain and death everywhere they can, not me. The “pro-life” position is morally bankrupt, based on religious/sexual bigotry and sheer malice.
I was so not going to get involved with this argument. It’s one of those issues that no one can seem to agree on. But I have to ask: Cite?
So, Updike, may I assume you also oppose ending ectopic pregnancies? That, too, is removing a fetus from a mother, thus ending a human life by your logic.
There was a question which was raised earlier, and I do have an answer for it, although no cite available right now. According to what I’ve read, there is exactly one doctor in the entire state of South Dakota who performs abortion. One. Frankly, I don’t think this bill will deter her, and I doubt abortion is a huge problem in South Dakota. I’m generalizing, but I would suspect alcoholism and poverty are much larger problems, especially on reservations, and it would be interesting to know what the infant mortality rate for South Dakota is compared to the rest of the country.
Yes, the bill contains a provision for an abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. If there’s only one doctor in the state who performs abortions, and some form of proof that the life of the mother is in danger, I wonder how effective that provision will be.
CJ