Are all we saying is that peaceful endeavors do not deserve violent ends? That was my point; Peaceful endeavor = residing in the womb Not peaceful ending = being aborted I'm not twisting anything. You described the "peaceful" activity of studying law as being undeserving of execution. I simply extended that principle to the "peaceful: activity of growing and developing in the womb... and likewise concluded that that peaceful activity is undeserving of a violent end. The point is if you want the end (abortion), you'll find a way to justify the means-- peaceful or not.
i don't get to make decision 2, above, for someone else. life is protected above freedom. TONS of my freedoms are abridged because it would jack with someone else's life if i could do them. speeding in my car, for instance. people in communist countries...people living under dictators...still fight to preserve their own lives.
Let me understand your argument. Did you compare the activity of going to law school and getting executed with getting an abortion? Am I misunderstanding your analogy?
Here's my original post on the subject: "If you were aware that all new law school graduates were being summarily executed, would you stop people from going to law school or would you try and stop the executions?" Then I upped the ante: "And if your neighbor was able to intervene and stop your lawyer child from being executed, would you criticize them for intervening and ask them to go save a law student?" I was undermining the criticism foisted upon those who fight to prevent abortions rather than fighting to stop unwanted pregnancies. I tried to make it tangible for someone here, who would move heaven and earth to save their child who happens to be in law practice rather than in the womb.
Abridging freedoms and removing them outright are two different ballgames. Several of us have been agreeable to abridging abortion rights. We are only opposing the outright ban of abortions. Speeding is a bad example on your behalf. 1. The ultimate right we are talking about is Driving. Speeding is only a componant of driving. You are not abdridged from driving. 2. If you want to speed, you can do so if you are prepared to pay the consequences. You abortion law would not allow folks to make this decision. Did you vote for W? He seems to think it is okay to sacrifice lives for the sake of democracy and freedom. So which is it? Is it ok to sacrafice lives for freedom or not? If you are saying it is not, then are you saying it is acceptible to live under dictorships and communism? Please address these questions. I'm curious.
I understand and it still isn't a good analogy but you are right that I argued my position incorrectly. You outline two actions in comparison with each other. 1. Going to law school --> execution 2. Baby in womb --> Abortion Those are your parallel cause/effect relationships in your analogy? 1. law school (desirable) 2. baby in womb (not desirable, for those that chose abortion) Therefore, your analogy is an apples/oranges comparison because going to law school is something desirable that people strive for that leads to death. Those that are having abortions do NOT see having a baby in the womb as "desirable." As such, it is a bad analogy. They are not comparable. But good try.
Your original language was to describe law school as "peaceful." I remarked that I could think of nothing more "peaceful" than a life in the womb. Now you change it to desireable which is an even more value-added word.
1. my point is only that when a human life is involved...or even may be involved...i don't have the same rights i might otherwise. if something i do jeopardizes or COULD jeopardize a human life, it's given scrutiny. 2. did you vote for W? do you think it's ok to sacrifice lives for the sake of democracy and freedom?? yes or no...doesn't matter. i don't get to make that choice for someone else. i can't say, "oh that woman must be living in pain...she must be suffering, because her own liberties have been taken away. it's better if she's dead." i'm not saying dictatorships are acceptable. i'm saying, i don't get to tell the people who live there that they're better off dead.
The abortion law is for the babies not the adults. As it is the adults are empowered to make a life-and-death decision <b>to</b> the baby.
Andymoon- Thanks again for clarification. I wan't accusing you, I wanted you to think of what you said and explain further. You did. We are starting to say the same thing. 1. I would not be for any legislation that would not solve the problem or cause a great deal of harm, I am not sure where you got that from, I don't think I posted anything about legislation, except I am not for it. 2. I was not trying to argue when life begins, I made all my points based upon the baby being alive contrasting a baby that is dead. I wasn't even trying to defend the fertilized embryo, although you probably know that in principle that is where I would be. And I am not proposing legislation, there is a long way for this issue to go before we can start processing the best means of solving the abortion crisis. Just take my points that abortion itself kills a living baby apart from the battle to determine when life begins. I am willing to accept a compromise solution if it will save more lives of unborn children. 3. I think the whole issue of restrictions on abortion could not be made in a vacuum, we have gone to far down the road, there are many many consequences to consider and make additional provisions for prior to making changes. If you just passed a narrow law cold turkey it wouldn't last over the long haul. The solutions must be far sighted enough to reduce at risk pregnancies, reduce significantly unwanted pregnancies, and catch the thousands of women that will be falling through cracks as changes are made. 4. No, Andymoon I do get that there are many who see the fetus as a parasite or tapeworm that they have right to remove through abortion. But I am 51 yrs old and it wasn't always that way. We have taught that and endoctrinated the thinking of a generation for the last 30 yrs. I am old enough to remember the mindset of youth before Roe. The thinking can be changed again. To give a view of human life that there is great value, dignity and protection for our unborn children. It will take time. We haven't arrived in our current abortion culture over night. It will take many efforts to prepare for the dangers we faced before with back ally abortions and criminalization of the poor. It will take a great effort to find the right answers. But it can be done, and it must be done. Congratulations to you and your wife, knowing that you will soon have another child is a great encouragement. I pray you have a very healthy baby and your family will be a great blessing. Thank you for listening... I have tried to here you also.
My initial feeling that you chose a bad analogy was supported with the wrong choice of words. Forgive me. I didn't express myself correctly. But I don't understand your objection to the term "desirable". So let me explain it another way. People who are motivated to go to law school had set going to law school as a goal. IE...desirable. People who are motivated to have abortions did not set having a baby in the womb as a goal. IE...not desirable. Since what is desirable is fundamentally different for each person, I use the term "desirable" to be in the context of the individual at question...not a general term to the public. As such, it is unfair to compare the outcome between the two scenarios since you stage the initial premise upon a different set of motivations.
context, andy. context. i don't get to choose when someone is "better off dead." we'll go round and round....i believe that the thing growing inside is a human being...you don't. the end.
I have no problem with people "desiring" to go to law school. The question I asked was if you learned that law school graduates were being executed would you try to save the graduates being executed (babies in utero) or would you be satisfied just saving the law students (pregnancies to come). Then I upped the ante to indicate that one of the lawyers at risk for execution was your own child and the question I asked was whether or not you would criticize your neighbor for striving to save your child. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] It is hard to even discuss this in a way that makes sense because you are focused on the needs and wants of the adults while I am focused on the child. We are practically talking past one another.
If I play baseball, that COULD jeapardize anybody within range of the bat or ball. So should we outlaw baseball? In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty and as such, we don't convict people to go to jail based on "ifs" and "opinion." Murderers get off all the time (OJ Simpson) because it cannot be proven. You cannot prove that a fetus is alive and therefore it is NOT murder. We are sacrifing lives right now in Iraq for the sake of democracy and freedom (at least that's what were being told and people seem to agree or they wouldn't have voted for W). So do you agree that we should be in Iraq or not? That's exactly right. We should make such decsions ourselves. Exactly. But she should be able to make that decsion herself. You have no right to tell her what to do with her body.
Man, this is too funny. Max was talking about a life and death decision that some adult has a right to make about their own life. You rush to agree but deflate his message to one essentially devoid of import... and then rush off to make a life and death decision about some helpless child that can't even raise its arms in defense because the attack comes from behind.
YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY!!! the woman is the baby in that analogy!!! the one who we're deciding whether or not it's cool to abort/kill/eliminate/terminate/whatever word makes you comfortable. seriously...we've been round and round...i've been through this with andy more times than i can count. you either believe the thing growing inside the womb is a living human being, or you don't. some want to put an arbitrary magic date on that. others say the mother's right ALWAYS trumps. still others see it as worth of protection from conception. and people fall somewhere along those lines, though most don't give it much thought at all. most people will live and die in this country never having thought about it nearly as much as those who've posted in this thread over the last week or so. meanwhile, 4 million abortions per year are carried out in the US. well, at least someone's making some money off of it right? that's the american way after all. people do go to jail for ifs. dui is a great example. you go to jail for it because the concern is you might hurt someone...even kill someone. because you MIGHT hurt someone, drinking and driving is outlawed.
I''ve been away from this thread for a bit. Are we now considering killing lawyers? Did I miss something? Are we for or against? (I know I'm torn...).
It is not a child to a woman who wants an abortion, it is a mass of unwanted tissue. It is not a "life and death" decision to her and you have no right to assert that it should be. It is her decision, not yours.
