You haven't pointed out a single inconsistancy or contradiction. You have tried to twist my words many times, but as yet, you have not shown a single instance of illogical or untruthful statements.
that's more in line with the polls i've seen...notice a majority of the country finds it morally wrong, too.
are you kidding?? you make absolute arguments like, "even if it's alive the mother has a right to terminate it," followed by arguments like, "if it's viable, there ought to be restrictions." you talk about free will...but then acknowledge that God must want certain social policies to fail since we haven' t been successful
Goophers made the point that the facts and science were pointed out by y'all, but you have posted nothing of the sort. My case is made on the rights that the founding fathers of this country gave to us, the same rights that you are trying to have stripped. Further, I have made my case with spiritual arguments that none of you have even attempted to grapple with. Isn't it a little telling that the only one talking about God in this discussion is me.
you're misrepresenting the argument: 1. we posted timelines of the development of a fetus from different sources...you told us what yours said...and you told us your child has no limbs at week 12. or at least none that you could see. bobrek just posted a poll regarding attitudes towards abortion...haven't seen one from you yet. just conclusory statements 2. founding fathers...pllleeaseeee. the right to abortion wasn't conferred until 1973. ask john adams how he felt about abortion. i don't think you'd like his answer. 3. what spiritual arguments?? you argue for karma. we don't share the same belief system...i'm not about to insult your belief system about God. i find it confusing...but i'd be happy to talk with you about God.
Sorry, I'm talking about the law here. This has nothing to do with God...ever met a pro-life atheist? I have.
Actually, I said that PERSONALLY, I believe that even if it is a life, the mother has the right. At the same time, there ought to be reasonable restrictions on abortion just like there are reasonable restrictions on other behavior like gambling and alcohol use. The difference is that one of those is MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF and the other is what I think is good public policy. One of the signs of a weak mind is the inability to hold two opposing thoughts in one's head at the same time. I specifically said that God doesn't care a whit about public policy as that is the purvey of wo/man. Social policies like prohibition and abortion bans aren't successful because they do not take into account the FACT that you cannot stop a behavior simply by making it illegal. Because you cannot stop the behavior, you must put reasonable restrictions on said behavior so as to minimize the societal cost.
I did reply to this. I said that I would post the information given to me by my OB/GYN and my wife once I get home.
1. cute comment on my feeble mind...you're a smart guy, andy!!! 2. ok...fine...post it....of course, we can't verify its accuracy...like we could, say, if you went to a website and posted from there. 3. you also said we didn't post any evidence...here you're acknowledging we did. which is it? i get so confused with this feeble mind.
As stated before, I will post my timeline once it is in front of me. Wrong again, JA would have backed me because of his abiding belief that government should not interfere with the everyday lives of men. You should READ his writings instead of assuming. That is probably another thread.... How would it start? I would love to talk about spiritual beliefs.
My case is made on the rights that the founding fathers of this country gave to us, the same rights that you are trying to have stripped. And occasionally that we shouldn't question God, or that a fetus is definitely not a life, but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. And of course that if it is a crime, since we answer to God, it doen't matter if a crime is committed. Your arguments wobble in circles and have no logical center. You hop from argument to argument whenever someone points out an inconsistency. You have a bad habit of arguing a point, then when someone refutes it, pointing out that it doesn't matter anyway. The reason that the pro-choice and pro-life movements both go nowhere is that on the pro-choice side, the advocates do exactly what you're doing and make no sense. On the pro-life side, the biggest advocates are the "you're a sinner for supporting abortion" people. Neither argument is going to change anyone's mind so we go in circles forever and ever.
OK, the law says that women have the right. The Constitution is pretty clear when it comes to what the government can and can't interfere with, and what happens in a woman's body would qualify. Furthermore, the case in question is one where the woman changed her mind after 30 years and wants to petition the court to change their findings. What a joke. I have met a bunch of pro-choice Republicans who are currently voting Libertarian because of the idiocy of the Republican stance on abortion.
Please don't forget to clarify the following: Originally posted by bobrek I do read, but pardon my ignorance to your superior intellect, I am confused as to your response. You keep referring to the harm to the mother, but what about the harm to the unborn child? For argument's sake, assume the women is in her 9th month and from all indications will soon give birth to a healthy child. She is robbed at gunpoint and shot in the abdomen. Both she and the soon to be born, completely viable outside the mother's womb, child are killed. Should the perpetrator be charged with one or two murders? If not 2 murders, why not? Since God is not a vengeful God in your opinion, I am still curious as to what will happen to the woman who has an abortion when she meets her maker. You have said that the choice to have an abortion is between the mother and God. In your opinion what will God do to the woman OR what will be her karmic experience? Is it something good or bad?
major -- great post! couldn't agree more all the way around andy -- you shouldn't assume i'm assuming about john adams...you shouldn't assume i haven't read his works...i have. and if you can point me anywhere where he says "abortion is keen" i'll personally delete every post i made in this thread. the fact is, the abortion debate was much less meaningful at that time without ultrasound and other technology that allowed us to learn more about the development of a fetus.
point me where you get that from the Constitution...does the Constitution say you have the right to take another person's life? we're defining this argument by that decision...the decision on whether or not the fetus is a life or not. that's it. sway from the argument all you want...but the ultimate question is whether or not it's life. let's just make that clear. because if it is life, then killing it is murder, no matter where it resides. you're the first pro-choice person i've ever argued with who thought it was morally acceptable to kill it even if you KNEW it was a real human life. that takes the argument to a whole other plane.
Excuse me, but y'all are the ones jumping from point to point, I am simply trying to respond to each and every one. I AM sorry that your arguments don't hold water, but don't blame the hopping on me when it is y'all that are taking the shotgun approach to this debate. Uh, OK. My arguments are in response to the circular logic that starts at an assumption that has no proof. If y'all can't use anything other than circular logic, I can't do anything but argue YOUR circle. The only people I don't make sense to are people who are so dug in to their way of thinking that they can't see the forest for the trees. If y'all could just set aside your initial assumption, maybe you would see that mine is the only logical, reasonable viewpoint here. None of you has addressed my points about medical oversight, constitutional rights, or spiritual issues. The problems inherent in alcohol and drug prohibition would be realized all over again if we were to ban abortion. Criminal enterprises would spring up in the absence of government oversight, women would have abortions in unsanitary conditions, and millions MORE dollars would flow into the hands of the various mafioso who would take this industry and run with it. The reason that abortion is legal is because the Supreme Court found it an unconstitutional abrogation of a woman's right to be in control of what happens in her body. Abortion WAS banned once and we had all the problems described above. The court struck it down for good reason. I agree that the "sinner" people are the ones who keep this debate from going anywhere. Since we are going to go in circles for all time, maybe we should paint numbers on our sides and see if we can get endorsement money for the "new NASCAR."
you're right, andy....we've been "wrong" all along. you've been right. thanks for your help. by the way....that was Major's first post in response...and I believe (though I don't want to speak for him) that he's pro-choice.
Well, early on, before I had many a single reference to God, you called me a Puritan.... so I knew where you would take it. Besides my conviction predates my concerns about God's laws. Andy, I am a Christian... as of age 39. I'm now 49; my feelings on this issue have not changed one iota since before I became a Christian and before I fathered 4 children. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it....
