So there is nothing inherently natural about your position on this. It is complete artifice since surviving outside of the womb is a moving goal line as the technology advances. You don't want to fall into that trap, do you? :grin: 100 years ago would have a different standard from 50 years ago yet different still from today all because of our technological capabilities. Never mind that the miracle of natural creation has not changed in those same 100 years. Just to be clear, I'm okay with some artifice, i.e. speed limits and limits on freedom of speech and battery laws but when it comes to innocent life and death I'm not okay. Not to Topic: this is the way liberals think, I guess!
Notice we have no thread about how modern conservatives think. Mostly because nobody has any discernable proof that they do.
Not the way "liberals" think, just the way I think. Any line regarding abortion will, at its root, be an artificial construct based on the perceived morality of the act. My personal belief is that this line should be based on the viability of the fetus, if it is viable, it has more "rights" in my mind than if it is a 4 week old clump of cells in the uterus. I am on record as saying that I think it is reasonable to expect a woman to make her choice as early as possible in the process. I do care more about the actual living, breathing human being in this argument (the woman) and the choice that she deserves to have regarding whether her uterus is used to bring a fetus to term. It is HER rights and beliefs that govern whether she has an abortion, if she doesn't believe it is wrong for her at that moment in her life, YOU don't have the right to limit her choices regarding medical procedures. It is between the woman, her doctor, and her God and has NOTHING to do with you or your belief system.
1. "Whether her uterus is being used?" She's not the victim here. She actually and voluntarily knew that that was a possibility-- unless she was raped. 2. "At that moment in her life?" Oh, if only we were all so free to give into our impulses. That's why we have laws. 3. Sorry but I can't let you constantly get away with shifting the discussion from a Life to a Medical Procedure. That's an Artifice Extraordinaire. 4. In this tragedy, one belief system is allowed to terminate a life and another is standing up for the saving of that same life... and you see the latter as the only Intruder. W-O-W!!
Yes, and if there were a real discussion of effective birth control, effective sex education classes, and things like Plan B were available OTC, there would be FAR fewer unwanted pregnancies, which would result in far fewer abortions. Even so, the woman would be a victim if the state mandated that she use her uterus to bring a fetus to term. I would find that even more invasive than other laws (sodomy laws as an example) which intrude on our bedroom. The state has no compelling reason to be involved in a woman's uterus. The woman, her doctor, and her God are the only entities that need to be consulted WRT medical procedures performed on the woman. Yes, and your laws have no place in a woman's uterus. She has the right to choose what happens in her body and should be free to make that decision herself. I haven't shifted anything, this has always been about a medical procedure. Your definition of life is not shared by everyone and you don't get to force your beliefs on other people. In this tragedy, one belief system thinks it is right to force the tenets of that belief system on others and another believes that the decision of whether to allow a medical procedure belongs to the person considering having the procedure done, her doctor, and her God...and you see the former as an appropriate use of the power of the State. W-O-W!!!
urrrg sorry this is just pissing me off... the only thing anti-choicers hate/fear more than abortion is a woman having sex outside of the comforting confines of traditional marriage (aka sluts). if it wasn't that, why wouldn't they be fervently for MORE contraception--the ONLY WAY to prevent/decrease abortions. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html you don't see them bashing fathers for their choices, like my own, who said PEACE OUT and couldn't wait to give up his paternal rights fast enough. how very convenient! oh and before you say it, i'm ambivalent about my mother's choice to keep me. had she not, i would not exist; i would be none the wiser. i don't judge her for the abortion she did have, in fact...i'm glad she did...because of her abortion, i got the amazingly lucky chance to be born. giddyup, like twhy, cannot be reasoned with. someone posted that black/white image in another thread and that describes these posters to a T. tl;dr - DEM SLUTS!!!!!
This one always stays relevant... http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-out-of-my-uterus-vs-we-must-deploy-troops-to-je,11546/
My recently graduated adult daughter lived with her boyfriend in New Zealand for a year. We regularly had iChats with them. When they came to visit, they shared a bed, unmarried though they were. BTW, I had 7 and 9 YO daughters under the roof at the time. So why don't you try that over... Where the opportunity arises, you'll see me bashing those fathers. Not sure how this logic flows? Why are you here because someone else isn't? I was born after my mother had three miscarriages. Then came my younger brother. I am totally reasonable on this matter. I focus on life-saving instead of choice-making. The truth is that you, and your ilk, only will see me as reasonable if I come over to your side. I recognized your argument and see it as secondary. You don't recognize my argument and call it fiction. Now who is the unreasonable one?
It isn't that your "argument" is fiction, the problem is that your argument depends on forcing others to comply with your particular belief system. Such force is not a valid use of government's power, particularly not when it has to do with external control over a woman's body and biological processes.
So others are forced to comply with your belief system... that's the way it is whichever way you settle it. It's a compromise. You don't even see it that way, do you? I'm for using caution on behalf of that little life.
I will never force anyone to comply with my belief system. There will NEVER come a day when I would force or support forcing a woman to have an abortion. Nor would I ever force someone to believe that abortion is the right thing to do. That particular question is for each woman to decide for herself, free from coercion from the state or other people who she doesn't believe should have a voice in the matter.
I am for giving a woman complete control over her body. It is hers, she deserves to decide what is done with and in it.
I you really think abortion is the equivalent of murder, you should spend your offering free pre and post natal care, and free birth control, oh, like Obamacare started to today. (Abortion, the Dwight Howard of D&D topics)
am i missing something? no one is forced to have an abortion. but YOU want to take away one of the choices. stop talking about the cute lil' baby for ONE SECOND and offer me a solution - do we outlaw abortion? do we chain up pregnant women for 9 months? seriously, tell me what happens in your perfect world
Please show me the provision in the law that forces a woman to have an abortion under any circumstance whatsoever. No, it isn't about the fetus at all. It is about the woman and her decision to either use her uterus to bring the fetus to term or to have a medical procedure so that she doesn't have to. The only people who think it is about the fetus are people trying to force their own moral views on other people, you know, people like you.
No, it's not. If I lack something, that does not mean I've somehow replaced it with something else. Lacking something simply means that you don't have something. I lack religious conviction. That doesn't mean that I've somehow replaced religious conviction with some other conviction ... it just means that I lack religious conviction. ...your logic is completely nonsensical here. The world is not black and white. But here, I'll do you a favor and try out your logic for size: I lack a 1965 Ford Mustang. Therefore, that implies that I have a 1967 Ford Mustang instead. I'm sure this is all a pointless exercise, but you're wrong here. Find another justification for your beliefs, because the "you lack [x] ... therefore you have some other [x]" doesn't make any sense at all.
Everyone believes in something. Even choosing to believe in nothing. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is up to you, though.
