Rhester; Saying something like "What crule darkness would capture the mind of my wife" and "That is the mind trick of the Neo-Nazi" is exactly what I meant that women who contemplate abortion need more understanding instead of moralizing. You recognize that there are very sad and unfortunate circumstances that women find themselves in and I think that is where a solution to the problem needs to be found.
Give me some time and I will send you the basics as I remember, it was about 1995. Take care, appreciate you responses here and man what a let down in game 7.
Very well then. If you refuse to accept the other half of American opinion that doesn't accept that the embreyo is "living" and therefore it cannot be murder, then I'll go along with your premise. I whole heartedly accept your belief to spread the word that abortion is bad. And if you truely beleive that, and it certainly seems that you do, then that is your right as an American to spread that message. But there is a difference between saying "Abortion is bad" to "You are not allowed to do it." That is where you overstep your bounds as an American. However, as an American, you can still reduce the number of abortions. Figure out ways to influence public policy for programs that reduce unwanted pregnancies. You'll piss off far few people and get the same end result. And we won't call you a religious zealot. Instead we will be proud to call you an American.
1. so if you disagree with the state of the law in America, you're not an American? what if the law changes?? it certainly did before. 2. do you know what Roe v. Wade says? it says that an embryo is worthy of protection past month 3 of the pregnancy. did you know that??? 3. how many people do you think ACTUALLY have given real thought as to when a "baby/embryo/seedling/whatever" is ALIVE?? seriously.
This is a bit tangential but I find that an interesting argument to make for a fan of the administration to make. Considering that I've heard people argue that decrease in rates of deaths of US soldiers in Iraq shows that things are looking up there. Or that decrease in terrorist attacks against Americans show that the Admin's policies are good. Your viewpoint seems to be that unless a statistic is 0 then it doesn't matter.
If it's not living, end of debate, no need to stick sharp objects into the heads of dead tissue. If it is not alive then I am ready to take the red pill and find out how deep the rabbit hole is (or whatever color pill Neo took) I don't know what all those things are they bag in the clinic, but they are not in the same 'live' state that my children were in at birth. I know I am missing your point, I am sorry for that.
Simply making a law doesn't stop abortions. People could simply drive to Mexico. What have you solved then? But stopping unwanted pregnancies DOES stop abortions! And I suppose you support the death penalty and the war in Iraq...as most conservatives do. That's the part I can't figure out. So it goes both ways. So now we're even.
1. just because we can't eliminate an undesirable behavior doesn't mean it can't be made criminal...can you imagine if that were a truism??? well..people are still robbing banks...so we might as well decriminalize it! 2. why are working to stop unwanted pregnancies and suppporting legislation that curbs abortions mutually exclusive?
I agree with you but the problem is complicated and one that I don't think can be solved by prohibition of abortion. When abortion was outlawed in the US there still were abortions and in Ireland where abortion is outlawed women often go to England to get them or have illegal ones performed. I think many of us on the pro-choice side would want to see that abortions aren't necessary but simply putting doctors and women in jail isn't going to stop that as long as there is demand for them. Going back to a situation where the only option is illegal abortions that will cause more harm to women being mutilated by back alley hacks and will still lead to fetus' being killed. At least with it legal the safety of the women can dealt with. I know for you that is probably small comfort but at least it saves the life of the women. All I'm saying is that I can respect and understand the passion that you and other pro-lifers have about this issue but I think that the push for a blanket ban is not only untenable but would also lead to greater harm. I think we can all agree to work on eliminating the reasons for women wanting abortions.
It isn't about law. We are talking about basic human rights...namely the right of the mother to do as she pleases with her own body. As your response, you'll say what about the rights of the baby. Since it is debatable about where life begins, the baby does not have the same rights afforded as the mother. As an American, I support maintaining the rights of Americans afforded to me by the constitution. You do NOT have the right to tell me what to do with my own body. The constitution is a tool to GRANT rights to people...not take them away (as in Gay marriage...another thread). So if there is a law out there that restricts people too much, I won't support it because it is not in the spirit of the constitution. I've said in this thread that I fully support certain restrictions on abortion such as late term and parental consent. I do NOT support an outright ban. That fundamentally defines this issue. You cannot have a serious converstation on this topic without covering the "where does life begin" question. Seriously.
Creating laws to stop behavior that you find morally wrong even if it does not infringe on the rights of other people is UNAMERICAN. Robbing banks infringes on the rights of other people. Smoking cigerettes does NOT, alchohol does NOT, etc. Gay Mariage does NOT. Abortion also does NOT infringe on the rights of other people (since a fetus is not alive yet). It isn't and I've repeated that several times. Curbing abortion is one thing. Outright baning it is another.
And I would argue that the Constitution doesn't afford you the ability to play loose and fast with human life. objection, non-responsive. i asked how many do you think have seriously considered that. i agree wholeheartedly...i've been telling you that throughout the whole thread, that the issue ultimately doesn't rest on social costs but rather in the determination of when life begins. i'm saying that if you don't know for sure....then you recognize you just might be killing millions of lives each year, just on the gamble that they're really not alive. any other walk of life, and we'd go to jail for that. it's reckless.
Quite trying to use the guilt trip. I agree with you that abortion is bad. But I disagree with you, apparently, about the solution. IMO, the most effective way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancies. In your opinion, am I a bad person for having that belief?
1. i don't find it to be morally wrong anymore so than i find reckless endangerment of a life to be morally wrong. or anymore so than you probably view murder as morally wrong. this isn't a moral issue. believing a fetus is a living human being or at least that it's pretty damn close and worthy of protection doesn't feel like a moral issue. ultimately, it's one that may be decided by science. 2. I would argue that abortion infringes on the rights of one, in particular, in the most heinous way.
Until science provides us an ultimate answer, it remains a difference in opinion. If a fetus is "pretty damn close," that isn't good enough. In the meantime, the mother's rights take precedence. If you have a problem with that, talk to the mothers and convince them not to get pregnant in the first place or convince them not to have the abortion. That's the right you have right now. And when science DOES provide us the answer, will also defer to science on the question of evolution? And you have that right to make your arguement. But you do NOT have the right to take away the rights of mothers. You also have the right to push for better policy to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
It isn't human life. Do we need to keep going in circles? Object back...unanswerable. Look Max, You and I have the same goal. I'm just approaching it on a different front. It is my belief that if you are fighting abortion after the pregnancies begin, you're too late in the game. Because if you prevent the abortion, the child is less likely to grow up in a happy family. I would prefer we stop unwanted pregnancies. That issue supercedes abortion, IMO, and the end result is better.
what did you think i was going to do?? blow up clinics?? come on. i have the same rights as you do...no more...no less. i'm not suggesting i can single-handedly change the law of the land.
BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!!! that's the whole point: if we both concede we don't know for sure....then maybe it is a life...maybe it isn't. and to employ policy that says, "ok...we don't know for sure..it MIGHT be human life...and we MIGHT be murdering lives...but we'll do it anyway." that is so beyond reckless it's silly. you can't object to my question...i'm gonna have the judge force you to answer!
Okay, we can go in circles but you keep missing my point. My point is that your position is moot. Because I am going to support programs that work to stop unwanted pregnancies from occuring in the first place. This way I don't have to deal with the messy question about where life begins. We've tried that and we can't build consensus. Look how much time we've lost, as a society, wasting energy fighting an unwinable battle.
