You're making an emotional argument, not a rational one. You might have entered this cause out of love but now you're in it for vengeance. There will always be abortions, in back alleys as they were before if not in doctors' offices. That's because it's not a settled matter that embryos=babies. But I'm not interested in arguing the unknowable thing of when sperm and egg become a human being because its a dead end street that leads all debates on this matter to emotional shouting on both sides. Leaving that out, our only difference of opinion on this is whether or not to put people in jail. In that arena, I am not the one that is "choosing something above love." I don't disagree with your passion for the unborn/embryos/whatever your belief leads you to call them; I admire it. I only disagree with your fervor for punishment and vengeance.
Also, no I am not interested in laws regarding animal cruelty because I don't agree with the general population about what constitutes cruelty. To me, slaughtering a cow so that you might enjoy a hamburger is murder just as abortion is to you. The difference between us here is that I recognize that our society is not going to put you in jail for eating meat so I don't waste my time or heart calling you a murderer in a world of people that do not consider the slaughter of innocent cows to be wrong. You could maybe take a lesson from that. But I expect you won't.
Time travel back to 1972. It's never been illegal to eat beef or pork. You don't believe in laws that prohibit animal cruelty? Free Mike Vick?!?!?!?
I don't know where you come off saying that. My fervor is for people to love the babies they create long enough to birth them. You seem to think my aim is just to throw people in jail. If that's what you think I don't think you've honestly assessed my position. Yes, I do believe in consequences but I prefer fewer to no infractions of the law. You do understand, of course, that for someone to get thrown in jail for an abortion that a baby would have to die in an abortion.... and you think my fervor is for that? I'm not sure if that is more insulting to me or to you!!!!!
Your asserted conclusion about my "fervor" was completely illogical and you call me nuts? Must be the pain meds....
giddyup, I have deeply, passionately, completely sure feelings about the slaughter and eating of animals. If you don't agree with MY feelings then nothing is more offensive or lacking in conscience. And I also can't understand why you want to choose something above "love." You don't think that sounds nuts? Or signals fervor? Okaaaay then...
I treat animals well although I'll choose people over animals every time. I'm sorry if that offends you; I will try not to flaunt it but I think in those positions reside the fervor you are trying to assign to me. My question about "love" was put to you: what are you choosing above love for those babies' lives? Choice for their mothers? Over love and respect for life?!? Okaaaay then.... disagreement is fine and that's what debate is about, but don't mis-represent my position (i.e stating that my "fervor" is for incarceration when said incarceration would necessarily include a baby destroyed). That's disingenuous and slanderous.
I am going to help rhad out a bit - when he talked about not being fair or honest he was only referencing you bringing up that he thinks you are a horrible person after he had apologized and you had accepted the apology. In other words: rhad: you are disturbed, giddy rhest: peace, love, and understanding rhad: on second thought, sorry giddy (I did not mean that) giddy: no prob (I understand you didn't mean it) giddy: here are all the reasons I am not a monster like you said I was rhad: but I apologized and you acting like I didn't is dishonest giddy: your apology sucked...and you said I was dishonest so that sucks more and changes your initial apology I, too, hate abortion threads. When I was younger I was firmly on the side of "abortion = not killing babies" but still hated this discourse unless it could be held rationally. Then I had children. I saw my little boy when he was the size of a strawberry stretch his arms out and yawn. The process with my kids changed my mind completely on the life issue, whether right or wrong. My mind has not changed on legality, though. Obviously, I want abortions to go down but they will never do so as long as people stick to black and white arguments. If we had a true working together and a utilitarian view of the issue, we would be able to do something tangible to reduce them. Of course now I will sound like an evil socialist because I think the answer is education, social services, and economic stimulus. Excessive abortion is a symptom of a sick system of economics, education, and culture. They will never go way but banning them now when there is nothing in place to help the situation will fail, keeping the legal status quo but doing nothing else will fail. The only way abortion goes down is to make them not as necessary. That takes more effort than most individual people are willing to take, much less society and government as a whole.
No more debate here for me; we'll do it another time. We got a call earlier this morning that my wife's grandmother has passed away, so I'll be checking out of this discussion to tend to family matters. Life is precious.
OH. MY. GOD. You said, and I quote, "you think I am a monster". Where the "you", refers to me. By saying "I don't think that is fair to me or honest to yourself", I was not insulting you. Rather, I was saying that such an implication was not justified by any of our dialogue with each other, nor did I think you really thought that. LEARN TO READ. It helps. Batman: You just repeated the argument of the last 20+ pages. Giddy agreed somewhere around page 15, and has spent the last 10 pages subsequently refuting his agreement, along with about one page of loony-bin worthy playground b****ing about an apology. Suffice to say, he is not thinking clearly. Which is not a surprise, since this is a thread about abortion. Gah. What a waste.
Very sorry to hear about that and my condolences to your family. Don't worry about the debate. We have differences of opinion but we can all agree on the importance of family and that it is a tragedy when we lose a loved one.
Are you saying that its a matter of numbers of how many people it is intended to terrify or if those people are already terrified?
The problem is that Roe v. Wade never directly addressed the question of when does life begin and under the 14th Ammendment it only states "born" as the standard of personhood. I agree with you that the laws are intellectually dishonest but until there is definitive ruling on when does life begins we can have such contradictions in the law.
As usual, this has been an interesting thread. I think life begins at conception, but pragmatically, I can't say that I support abolishing all abortions. I come from the view that even if technology had this magic ray to zap whatever is forming inside a woman's body and teleport it into one-size-fits-all incubation tube, we'll still have people who will want to get rid of it. It could be a sucky way of viewing the world, but in a world of billions, we only need 1% to make an issue suck. I also think that those passionately involved in this debate on either side have likely considered when life begins moreso than the average person going along in their daily routines. It's a damn hard issue to grasp because our views on life changes as we move along. Children can come to play, or the unexpected which could alter one's ambitions. But on the issue of criminalizing and punishment, one thing I am sure of is how people are still willing to rest their active energies they have on such a passionate issue solely at the voting booth. Government legislation seems like an easy fix to a highly complex issue, which Conservative libertarian minded members here could likely agree. I've also stated concerns on the other easy fix, technological innovation. At heart is a cultural issue where we all have to roll up our sleeves, dig down, and work at reducing the causes for unwanted pregnancies. Our nation is wrapped up in several inconsistencies. We can be the most generous people, but on certain issues, we are very unwilling and unforgiving. It makes the most sense to fight the causes at the root, but is it the most rewarding or the most efficient use of our personal time? Are those the only qualifications people are looking for to an answer that's right under our noses? I don't know, but we do get worked up over it.
Why is this terrorist not being waterboarded? Did Tiller's murderer act alone? and today Scott Roeder Warns Of More Violence From Anti-Abortion Movement WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claims that similar violence is planned for as long as the procedure remains legal.
