giddy, If the mother is going to die by having the baby, do you think that the baby should still be born?
bingo well said and nevermind the utter hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-choicers" -- they deny any kind of choice to the baby, they just kill it.
In cases where the mother's health is seriously in jeapordy, she should then have a "choice." Most "choice" is about the mother's lifestyle not her life though....
Your assertion was that "no one" is pro-violence or pro-speeding, both assertions are simply untrue. There is very little way that there will be LESS abortions were it illegal, given the existence of a drug that can induce abortion. If abortions in clinics were illegal, the prevalence of this drug would spread and the ban on abortions would be exactly as effective as the War on Drugs, which is to say not at all. The only difference is that we would have enforcement costs and dramatically higher healthcare costs as a result of women getting abortions outside the confines of a licensed doctor in a regulated medical facility. Yes, pro-life people should be much more cautious and respectful of the opinions of others rather than trying to force their own beliefs on others. Pro-lifers are recklessly trying to create a prohibition that would make the situation much worse than it already is.
It was an exaggeration to prove a point. We don't tolerate people who are pro-violence or pro-speeding, we control it to protect innovent lives. All participants are there voluntarily. Of course it's not true. If the drug induces abortion why would that not be made illegal. The ultimate goal is to protect innocent lives. Here's the rub: you think your choice is more important than an innocent life.
How did this become an abortion thread? We've had 100 of them. It is of course the #1 hot button issue in this country, sure to get an emotional commitment. But the odd thing is the side that always harps on freedom is the one that wants to deny freedom on this issue. Let's take for granted that many people have polar opposite ideas about when a baby transitions from a a cell formation inside an independent being to being a being itself. The side of 'Freedom' wants to make the determination for everyone and criminalize what the Supreme Court has determined to be reasonable and legal. It's strangely inconsistent and paradoxical.
Labeling is so problematic. I'm happy being called the "side of Freedom." We rein in other kinds of violence against individuals, why not abortion? I accept that you can only call me the "side of Freedom" if I am focusing on the life of the innocent child. I'm satisfied with that. People have their "freedoms" curtailed all the time, i.e. you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because someone might get hurt in the scramble to safety but you can abort an innocent child for any reason that pleases you? Now that is whacked....
My personal opinion on the issue is 'whatever'. But the argument has been adjudicated at the highest level of determination possible in a nation of laws. It's basically semantic determination on the definition of when a being becomes conscious and is capable of choice. And choice itself implies 'informed'. If you talked to the fetus and said, " hey look, you are going to have 75 years on this planet, you are going to have to work at some lame ass job for 50 of them, your heart will be broken 5 times, once by a soul killing divorce, you will have the flu 10 times, break 3 bones, have 5 years of painful arthritis, you will see your parents and many of your friends die and your children will do the same." He might say screw it.
"And if you're born to a poor single mother, don't look for these guys who are doing so much to protect you now. They won't care about you once you see your mother's vagina for hopefully the last time."
This is not an abortion thread. Please take the endless back and forth about that topic, and with giddy, it will be endless, and put it in any one of the dozen or so threads about the subject. Please.
Now "the man" is business.... they control the government... half the positions are made of "former" CEO's, lobbyists for big business..... Further, in the 60's people wanted MORE government regulation on some issues and less on other issues.... for example pollution control, poverty, etc.
This thread, like virtually all others, meanders around through and by the intended topic. This one is about "how liberals think." Abortion illustrates that very well. According to the Left, it's about "rights" not "responsibilities." Admittedly we talk past one another when one side focuses on the mother while the other focuses on the baby. At least I will admit that I'm willing to abridge what a mother may think is her "right" in order to save an innocent life. As a society we do that all the time as in the case of shouting fire... Instead, the "pro-Choice" side just tries to disavow the legitimacy of the claim of life for the affected child instead shouting about the sovereignty of the mother. Would any of you claim the right of the mother to choose over the life of the child or do you have to retreat to this elusive, dangerous route of trying to define when an individual life begins apart from conception or else just conclude that since we can't be certain it doesn't matter?
As a modern liberal I think allowances have to be made for varying opinions, individual choice must be respected and serious debate is required to determine the best law to serve the greater good. For me, the issue is sorta settled, though I understand that people who seriously believe abortion is killing babies will fervently and relentlessly pursue their cause. And within the bounds of free speech and legislation concistent with existing Supreme Courts rulings that's fine. (off the issue and framing 'context'?)
modern day conservatives -- the party of: doctor killing intolerance racism anti-science anti-intellectual broken tax codes crashing stock markets (see 1929, 1987, 2008) destruction of the american economy (see 1929, 2008) wasteful military spending homosexual sex scandals Jerry Sandusky how was that?
