Yes, I agree that any unplanned pregnancy could have a negative effect on someone's life...but I do think that th elife of the child trumps that effect on it;s parents/siblings, etc. Innocent life trumps.
But when two lives are equally innocent (unborn baby & born sibling), how do you decide that one necessarily trumps the other? Or do you not believe them to be equally innocent?
But when two lives are equally innocent (unborn baby & born sibling), how do you decide that one necessarily trumps the other? Or do you not believe them to be equally innocent?
Having an abortion kills the "unborn baby"
Not having the abortion does not kill the "born sibling"
So, not having the abortion wins because no one dies.
They are equally innocent, the outcome is what drives the decision.
One major point to remember is that women will ALWAYS terminate pregnancies.
The rich will ALWAYS have access to safe terminations.
The poor and maybe the young, scared and uninformed will always figure out ways to terminate pregnancies.
Do we want to put these populations at risk?
Of course we do! :rolleyes:
Otherwise, we would care more about the large and growing disparity in unintended pregnancy rates based on income and race and maybe work to do something about it.
I will never understand this argument...in that case, sense people will continue to do whatever they want anyhow, we shouldn't have any laws.
she put it more eloquently and concisely than most in this thread... if you dont understand it then so be it... but dont try to draw connections between getting an abortion and breaking a real law... laws are established to protect the peace of the general public... how does something as private as an abortion effect anyone other than the mother and the "baby"?
Otherwise, we would care more about the large and growing disparity in unintended pregnancy rates based on income and race and maybe work to do something about it.
Well, there you go, that is where it shoudl start, because whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, we all benefit from eliminating the need for abortions...the argument/disagreement/conversation goes away to a large extent.
she put it more eloquently and concisely than most in this thread... if you dont understand it then so be it... but dont try to draw connections between getting an abortion and breaking a real law... laws are established to protect the peace of the general public... how does something as private as an abortion effect anyone other than the mother and the "baby"?
There are child endangerment laws...no? I see it as the same thing. If you don't think the fetus is a child, then I can see being pro-choice. But to say that people will do something anyway as a reason for allowing it, it just not an effective argument in my opinion.
If I, I get to know your name
Well, if I could trace your private number, baby
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re lots of fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
I want some, want some
I set my sights on you
(And no one else will do)
And I, I’ve got to have my way now, baby
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re havin’ fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
Watch out, here I come
Chorus: You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round,
You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round
I-I got to be your friend now, baby
And I would like to move in just a little bit closer
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re lots of fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
Watch out, here I come
Chorus (x1)
I want your love
I want your love
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re lots of fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
Watch out, here I come
Chrous (x2)
hope it's not in poor taste to point out that the song originates with the band, Dead or Alive.
just a bit of levity on a poor, beaten dead horse of a debate here.
Overall harm. Yes, the fetus will still be "harmed," but since it will be harmed anyway with unsafe abortions, we can at least lessen the overall harm done to the mothers. Even if you don't care about whether the mother herself is harmed, this would also reduce the harm to her family who would have to live without her and/or pay her medical bills. Not to mention that do-it-yourself abortions are less effective, so it would also reduce the harm to babies who weren't fully aborted (you know, the ones the pro-life movement is trying to protect).
But when two lives are equally innocent (unborn baby & born sibling), how do you decide that one necessarily trumps the other? Or do you not believe them to be equally innocent?
Forgive me if the obvious is already known here, but could it be more that at a certain time in a woman's life she is better able to have her kids then when she is younger and maybe without a partner, etc. Maybe then those two kids are no different than the 1st kid in a family who gets the young optimistic in love parents and the last who gets the broken home, but the attention of one loving parent.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Forgive me if the obvious is already known here, but could it be more that at a certain time in a woman's life she is better able to have her kids then when she is younger and maybe without a partner, etc. Maybe then those two kids are no different than the 1st kid in a family who gets the young optimistic in love parents and the last who gets the broken home, but the attention of one loving parent.
Hmm... maybe it's just 'cuz I'm really tired, but I'm not sure I completely understand your question/point. Sorry.
well, the point of two lives; one "trumping" the other so to speak. That is what I meant that not one of them really is literally more important it is more a matter of circumstance, than preference.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
well, the point of two lives; one "trumping" the other so to speak. That is what I meant that not one of them really is literally more important it is more a matter of circumstance, than preference.
Yes, I think we agree.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there's more than one innocent "life" to consider. Oftentimes bringing another child into a family (or even just trying to carry another pregnancy to term) can be detrimental to the children who were already there. Sometimes one more child/pregnancy can be the breaking point for a family. That's just reality, plain and simple.
i don't normally post my opinions on these things. i guess i am not arrogant enough to try to force my opinions on someone else.
I am a man, i truly feel i have no say in what a woman does with her body. and neither should any one else.
And the government should not either. It is not the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves that infringe on our personal freedoms.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
it is not the governments job to ennact and enforce laws that prohibit personal freedom.
The government should not being passing laws that tell us to wear our seatbelts.
the government should not be passing laws to telling me to wear a helmet when i ride my motorcycle. and know i dont want to hear any bs stats about how these 2 items will save my life. it is my life to live how i choose. when it is my time to die, a helmet won't save me.
the government should not be passing laws to tell us what should and should not be on televison. or what is in books.
The government should not be fining disc jockeys for what they say on the radio.
I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.
You always have the personal freedom to turn the channel. not read a book. not listen to a radio show. not allowing these things take the freedom from someone else to watch listen or read.
The govenment should not be taxing me for making a living.
then taxing me for spending the money they already taxed me on.
then taxing me to get to the place to spend the money.
then taxing me for buying something i need/want.
then when i go home they tax me for living there. hell, i am being taxed for typing this.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
'
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. and the sure as hell dont have the right to tell anyone else.
and for the people who cry that guns need outlawed because they serve no purpose. the only reason you have this right to come on this board and try to impose your views on others is because of someone who had a gun.
and car wrecks kill more people than guns do. should we outlaw cars?
Do you think that England would of taken the colonies serious if they would of been defenseless?
They would of laughed at them.
If it wasnt for guns we would never of won the revolution. if not for guns we may be speaking french. or russian. or anything other language other than american. not english. american.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[
what stops the government from freely taking over our lives. voting? voting doesnt stop a tyranny from happening. guns do. they ability to defend yourself does.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
and a large part of the problem in this country now is everyone wants to force their views on everyone else. everyone thinks their views are better.
and that is what this whole post is about. people trying to force their views on other people. if everyone would mind their own business and worry about what they are doing and less about what other people are doing the country would be a better place.
and go ahead and flame away, it just further proves the points here.
i don't normally post my opinions on these things. i guess i am not arrogant enough to try to force my opinions on someone else.
I am a man, i truly feel i have no say in what a woman does with her body. and neither should any one else.
And the government should not either. It is not the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves that infringe on our personal freedoms.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
it is not the governments job to ennact and enforce laws that prohibit personal freedom.
The government should not being passing laws that tell us to wear our seatbelts.
the government should not be passing laws to telling me to wear a helmet when i ride my motorcycle. and know i dont want to hear any bs stats about how these 2 items will save my life. it is my life to live how i choose. when it is my time to die, a helmet won't save me.
the government should not be passing laws to tell us what should and should not be on televison. or what is in books.
The government should not be fining disc jockeys for what they say on the radio.
I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.
You always have the personal freedom to turn the channel. not read a book. not listen to a radio show. not allowing these things take the freedom from someone else to watch listen or read.
The govenment should not be taxing me for making a living.
then taxing me for spending the money they already taxed me on.
then taxing me to get to the place to spend the money.
then taxing me for buying something i need/want.
then when i go home they tax me for living there. hell, i am being taxed for typing this.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
'
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. and the sure as hell dont have the right to tell anyone else.
and for the people who cry that guns need outlawed because they serve no purpose. the only reason you have this right to come on this board and try to impose your views on others is because of someone who had a gun.
and car wrecks kill more people than guns do. should we outlaw cars?
Do you think that England would of taken the colonies serious if they would of been defenseless?
They would of laughed at them.
If it wasnt for guns we would never of won the revolution. if not for guns we may be speaking french. or russian. or anything other language other than american. not english. american.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[
what stops the government from freely taking over our lives. voting? voting doesnt stop a tyranny from happening. guns do. they ability to defend yourself does.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
and a large part of the problem in this country now is everyone wants to force their views on everyone else. everyone thinks their views are better.
and that is what this whole post is about. people trying to force their views on other people. if everyone would mind their own business and worry about what they are doing and less about what other people are doing the country would be a better place.
and go ahead and flame away, it just further proves the points here.
I want you on my team. I don't have a "team", but if I did, I would want YOU on it.
Take care,
I still want you all to "take care"--I am just damn tired of typing it.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there's more than one innocent "life" to consider. Oftentimes bringing another child into a family (or even just trying to carry another pregnancy to term) can be detrimental to the children who were already there. Sometimes one more child/pregnancy can be the breaking point for a family. That's just reality, plain and simple.
yeah, that is why these things are so complex and I have found that while voicing my opinion is fine, I need to be careful never to insinuate that my opinion is what SHOULD BE; which I know is not how you are either.
My point is that that is why these things are fragile and delicate, not things that harsh people can pompously decide for another.
you know?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
i don't normally post my opinions on these things. i guess i am not arrogant enough to try to force my opinions on someone else.
I am a man, i truly feel i have no say in what a woman does with her body. and neither should any one else.
And the government should not either. It is not the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves that infringe on our personal freedoms.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
it is not the governments job to ennact and enforce laws that prohibit personal freedom.
The government should not being passing laws that tell us to wear our seatbelts.
the government should not be passing laws to telling me to wear a helmet when i ride my motorcycle. and know i dont want to hear any bs stats about how these 2 items will save my life. it is my life to live how i choose. when it is my time to die, a helmet won't save me.
the government should not be passing laws to tell us what should and should not be on televison. or what is in books.
The government should not be fining disc jockeys for what they say on the radio.
I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.
You always have the personal freedom to turn the channel. not read a book. not listen to a radio show. not allowing these things take the freedom from someone else to watch listen or read.
The govenment should not be taxing me for making a living.
then taxing me for spending the money they already taxed me on.
then taxing me to get to the place to spend the money.
then taxing me for buying something i need/want.
then when i go home they tax me for living there. hell, i am being taxed for typing this.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
'
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. and the sure as hell dont have the right to tell anyone else.
and for the people who cry that guns need outlawed because they serve no purpose. the only reason you have this right to come on this board and try to impose your views on others is because of someone who had a gun.
and car wrecks kill more people than guns do. should we outlaw cars?
Do you think that England would of taken the colonies serious if they would of been defenseless?
They would of laughed at them.
If it wasnt for guns we would never of won the revolution. if not for guns we may be speaking french. or russian. or anything other language other than american. not english. american.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[
what stops the government from freely taking over our lives. voting? voting doesnt stop a tyranny from happening. guns do. they ability to defend yourself does.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
and a large part of the problem in this country now is everyone wants to force their views on everyone else. everyone thinks their views are better.
and that is what this whole post is about. people trying to force their views on other people. if everyone would mind their own business and worry about what they are doing and less about what other people are doing the country would be a better place.
and go ahead and flame away, it just further proves the points here.
you make valid points that are truly well thought out. I think you may be onto something here.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
i don't normally post my opinions on these things. i guess i am not arrogant enough to try to force my opinions on someone else.
I am a man, i truly feel i have no say in what a woman does with her body. and neither should any one else.
And the government should not either. It is not the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves that infringe on our personal freedoms.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
it is not the governments job to ennact and enforce laws that prohibit personal freedom.
The government should not being passing laws that tell us to wear our seatbelts.
the government should not be passing laws to telling me to wear a helmet when i ride my motorcycle. and know i dont want to hear any bs stats about how these 2 items will save my life. it is my life to live how i choose. when it is my time to die, a helmet won't save me.
the government should not be passing laws to tell us what should and should not be on televison. or what is in books.
The government should not be fining disc jockeys for what they say on the radio.
I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.
You always have the personal freedom to turn the channel. not read a book. not listen to a radio show. not allowing these things take the freedom from someone else to watch listen or read.
The govenment should not be taxing me for making a living.
then taxing me for spending the money they already taxed me on.
then taxing me to get to the place to spend the money.
then taxing me for buying something i need/want.
then when i go home they tax me for living there. hell, i am being taxed for typing this.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
'
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. and the sure as hell dont have the right to tell anyone else.
and for the people who cry that guns need outlawed because they serve no purpose. the only reason you have this right to come on this board and try to impose your views on others is because of someone who had a gun.
and car wrecks kill more people than guns do. should we outlaw cars?
Do you think that England would of taken the colonies serious if they would of been defenseless?
They would of laughed at them.
If it wasnt for guns we would never of won the revolution. if not for guns we may be speaking french. or russian. or anything other language other than american. not english. american.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[
what stops the government from freely taking over our lives. voting? voting doesnt stop a tyranny from happening. guns do. they ability to defend yourself does.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
and a large part of the problem in this country now is everyone wants to force their views on everyone else. everyone thinks their views are better.
and that is what this whole post is about. people trying to force their views on other people. if everyone would mind their own business and worry about what they are doing and less about what other people are doing the country would be a better place.
and go ahead and flame away, it just further proves the points here.
I agree with pretty much everything that you say here about government and taxes with the exception of the correlation to abortion.
I know that there is debate about when life really begins, but as long as their is debate and no absolute answer, I feel that we should err on the side of not killing a life...or infringing our choices upon that life.
The fact is, I believe that the woman and man make their choice when they have sex. As long as there is doubt as to the question of life past that point, they should deal with their choice in such a way that guarantees they are not killing the consequence of their choice.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there's more than one innocent "life" to consider. Oftentimes bringing another child into a family (or even just trying to carry another pregnancy to term) can be detrimental to the children who were already there. Sometimes one more child/pregnancy can be the breaking point for a family. That's just reality, plain and simple.
Take your example and look at it from another perspective. Perhaps all the children are already born, but one of them is detrimental to the others. Should that child be killed?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
yeah, that is why these things are so complex and I have found that while voicing my opinion is fine, I need to be careful never to insinuate that my opinion is what SHOULD BE; which I know is not how you are either.
My point is that that is why these things are fragile and delicate, not things that harsh people can pompously decide for another.
you know?
Yes - that's my point exactly! This is a very complex issue for each individual and so it is inappropriate for anyone to presume they know what's best for someone else and impose their will on them.
I get frustrated with the idea that debate is about two different sides each trying to impose their will on the other. That couldn't be further from the truth! This issue is about one side trying to impose its will on other people and those people resisting that imposition.
I agree with pretty much everything that you say here about government and taxes with the exception of the correlation to abortion.
I know that there is debate about when life really begins, but as long as their is debate and no absolute answer, I feel that we should err on the side of not killing a life...or infringing our choices upon that life.
The fact is, I believe that the woman and man make their choice when they have sex. As long as there is doubt as to the question of life past that point, they should deal with their choice in such a way that guarantees they are not killing the consequence of their choice.
I think this statement (that I bolded) is where people take issue with the label "pro-life". (And that's not to say that you use that label; I can't remember for sure.) Is it only innocent human life you think we should err on the side of not possibly killing, and only if our decision would infringe upon their will? These qualifiers - innocent, human, against their will - significantly whittle down the protections afforded by a pro-life stance.
If this is what life you mean to protect, it seems appropriate to just be explicit about that and the debate can pick up from there. The anti-abortion movement should be called "pro-innocent, human life which desires to continue", not just "pro-life". (At which point there is still no problem until you become anti-choice.)
Otherwise it seems that those who truly believe they are pro-life should really step back for a moment of self-examination about their stance on war, poverty, euthanasia, the death penalty, self-defense, veganism, pest control, gardening, etc.
I think this statement (that I bolded) is where people take issue with the label "pro-life". (And that's not to say that you use that label; I can't remember for sure.) Is it only innocent human life you think we should err on the side of not possibly killing, and only if our decision would infringe upon their will? These qualifiers - innocent, human, against their will - significantly whittle down the protections afforded by a pro-life stance.
If this is what life you mean to protect, it seems appropriate to just be explicit about that and the debate can pick up from there. The anti-abortion movement should be called "pro-innocent, human life which desires to continue", not just "pro-life". (At which point there is still no problem until you become anti-choice.)
Otherwise it seems that those who truly believe they are pro-life should really step back for a moment of self-examination about their stance on war, poverty, euthanasia, the death penalty, self-defense, veganism, pest control, gardening, etc.
Actually, I'm against all killing whether it's innocent, guilty, friend, enemy, criminal, terminally ill, etc. I think it's wrong. So in that sense, I'm definitely "pro-life".
I'm also anti-abortion in that I have reasons to oppose it that aren't even based upon whether it's a life or what my religious views say. I truly believe it's wrong on many levels.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The fact is, I believe that the woman and man make their choice when they have sex. As long as there is doubt as to the question of life past that point, they should deal with their choice in such a way that guarantees they are not killing the consequence of their choice.
Here's another thing I often wonder about: Do people not remember that there are many cultures in the world where women don't really have a choice in the matter of sex (especially with their husbands) or contraception? I know some anti-choice people think there should be an exception for rape, but in these situations it's not really considered rape.
All I'm saying is, women's "choice" to have sex is often not as black and white as most of us in the U.S. have to luxury of believing it is. (And the U.S. only accounts for 3% of the abortions in the world.) I think that's something worth keeping in mind when we think we can judge what another woman's choice should be.
I agree with pretty much everything that you say here about government and taxes with the exception of the correlation to abortion.
I know that there is debate about when life really begins, but as long as their is debate and no absolute answer, I feel that we should err on the side of not killing a life...or infringing our choices upon that life.
The fact is, I believe that the woman and man make their choice when they have sex. As long as there is doubt as to the question of life past that point, they should deal with their choice in such a way that guarantees they are not killing the consequence of their choice.
Humans aren't special...and a few less roaming this planet is a good thing. I say we err on the side of not starting the life of yet another human.
If it wasnt for guns we would never of won the revolution. if not for guns we may be speaking french. or russian. or anything other language other than american. not english. american.
Sure the Native American's weren't so enthused with these guns as they were used to systematically wiped them out....but woo hoo...we beat the British.
Comments
The rich will ALWAYS have access to safe terminations.
The poor and maybe the young, scared and uninformed will figure out ways to terminate pregnancies. However unsafe they may be.
Do we want to put these populations at risk?
That is all overturning Roe v Wade will do.
If you are against abortion DON'T HAVE ONE.
You will not stop free will by trying to impose your values on others.
CHOICE FOR ALL.... NOT ONLY THE RICH!
But when two lives are equally innocent (unborn baby & born sibling), how do you decide that one necessarily trumps the other? Or do you not believe them to be equally innocent?
Having an abortion kills the "unborn baby"
Not having the abortion does not kill the "born sibling"
So, not having the abortion wins because no one dies.
They are equally innocent, the outcome is what drives the decision.
I will never understand this argument...in that case, sense people will continue to do whatever they want anyhow, we shouldn't have any laws.
Of course we do! :rolleyes:
Otherwise, we would care more about the large and growing disparity in unintended pregnancy rates based on income and race and maybe work to do something about it.
http://seanbriceart.com/
Well, there you go, that is where it shoudl start, because whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, we all benefit from eliminating the need for abortions...the argument/disagreement/conversation goes away to a large extent.
There are child endangerment laws...no? I see it as the same thing. If you don't think the fetus is a child, then I can see being pro-choice. But to say that people will do something anyway as a reason for allowing it, it just not an effective argument in my opinion.
If I, I get to know your name
Well, if I could trace your private number, baby
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re lots of fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
I want some, want some
I set my sights on you
(And no one else will do)
And I, I’ve got to have my way now, baby
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re havin’ fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
Watch out, here I come
Chorus:
You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round,
You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round
I-I got to be your friend now, baby
And I would like to move in just a little bit closer
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re lots of fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
Watch out, here I come
Chorus (x1)
I want your love
I want your love
All I know is that to me
You look like you’re lots of fun
Open up your lovin’ arms
Watch out, here I come
Chrous (x2)
hope it's not in poor taste to point out that the song originates with the band, Dead or Alive.
just a bit of levity on a poor, beaten dead horse of a debate here.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I believe this is what's called a harm reduction approach, which makes sense from a public health perspective.
Harm to who though?
You tell us?
At what point does it become "murder" to you?
Is it once the sperm meets the egg?
Are you against the day after pill?
Is it at the time of implantation?
Are you anti-IUD's?
Overall harm. Yes, the fetus will still be "harmed," but since it will be harmed anyway with unsafe abortions, we can at least lessen the overall harm done to the mothers. Even if you don't care about whether the mother herself is harmed, this would also reduce the harm to her family who would have to live without her and/or pay her medical bills. Not to mention that do-it-yourself abortions are less effective, so it would also reduce the harm to babies who weren't fully aborted (you know, the ones the pro-life movement is trying to protect).
Forgive me if the obvious is already known here, but could it be more that at a certain time in a woman's life she is better able to have her kids then when she is younger and maybe without a partner, etc. Maybe then those two kids are no different than the 1st kid in a family who gets the young optimistic in love parents and the last who gets the broken home, but the attention of one loving parent.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Hmm... maybe it's just 'cuz I'm really tired, but I'm not sure I completely understand your question/point.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Yes, I think we agree.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there's more than one innocent "life" to consider. Oftentimes bringing another child into a family (or even just trying to carry another pregnancy to term) can be detrimental to the children who were already there. Sometimes one more child/pregnancy can be the breaking point for a family. That's just reality, plain and simple.
I am a man, i truly feel i have no say in what a woman does with her body. and neither should any one else.
And the government should not either. It is not the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves that infringe on our personal freedoms.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
it is not the governments job to ennact and enforce laws that prohibit personal freedom.
The government should not being passing laws that tell us to wear our seatbelts.
the government should not be passing laws to telling me to wear a helmet when i ride my motorcycle. and know i dont want to hear any bs stats about how these 2 items will save my life. it is my life to live how i choose. when it is my time to die, a helmet won't save me.
the government should not be passing laws to tell us what should and should not be on televison. or what is in books.
The government should not be fining disc jockeys for what they say on the radio.
I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.
You always have the personal freedom to turn the channel. not read a book. not listen to a radio show. not allowing these things take the freedom from someone else to watch listen or read.
The govenment should not be taxing me for making a living.
then taxing me for spending the money they already taxed me on.
then taxing me to get to the place to spend the money.
then taxing me for buying something i need/want.
then when i go home they tax me for living there. hell, i am being taxed for typing this.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
'
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. and the sure as hell dont have the right to tell anyone else.
and for the people who cry that guns need outlawed because they serve no purpose. the only reason you have this right to come on this board and try to impose your views on others is because of someone who had a gun.
and car wrecks kill more people than guns do. should we outlaw cars?
Do you think that England would of taken the colonies serious if they would of been defenseless?
They would of laughed at them.
If it wasnt for guns we would never of won the revolution. if not for guns we may be speaking french. or russian. or anything other language other than american. not english. american.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[
what stops the government from freely taking over our lives. voting? voting doesnt stop a tyranny from happening. guns do. they ability to defend yourself does.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
and a large part of the problem in this country now is everyone wants to force their views on everyone else. everyone thinks their views are better.
and that is what this whole post is about. people trying to force their views on other people. if everyone would mind their own business and worry about what they are doing and less about what other people are doing the country would be a better place.
and go ahead and flame away, it just further proves the points here.
thanks for the generalization, ass hole
I want you on my team. I don't have a "team", but if I did, I would want YOU on it.
Take care,
http://www.youtube.com/user/kcherub#p/a/u/0/N-UQprRqSwo
yeah, that is why these things are so complex and I have found that while voicing my opinion is fine, I need to be careful never to insinuate that my opinion is what SHOULD BE; which I know is not how you are either.
My point is that that is why these things are fragile and delicate, not things that harsh people can pompously decide for another.
you know?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
you make valid points that are truly well thought out. I think you may be onto something here.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I agree with pretty much everything that you say here about government and taxes with the exception of the correlation to abortion.
I know that there is debate about when life really begins, but as long as their is debate and no absolute answer, I feel that we should err on the side of not killing a life...or infringing our choices upon that life.
The fact is, I believe that the woman and man make their choice when they have sex. As long as there is doubt as to the question of life past that point, they should deal with their choice in such a way that guarantees they are not killing the consequence of their choice.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Take your example and look at it from another perspective. Perhaps all the children are already born, but one of them is detrimental to the others. Should that child be killed?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes - that's my point exactly! This is a very complex issue for each individual and so it is inappropriate for anyone to presume they know what's best for someone else and impose their will on them.
I get frustrated with the idea that debate is about two different sides each trying to impose their will on the other. That couldn't be further from the truth! This issue is about one side trying to impose its will on other people and those people resisting that imposition.
I think this statement (that I bolded) is where people take issue with the label "pro-life". (And that's not to say that you use that label; I can't remember for sure.) Is it only innocent human life you think we should err on the side of not possibly killing, and only if our decision would infringe upon their will? These qualifiers - innocent, human, against their will - significantly whittle down the protections afforded by a pro-life stance.
If this is what life you mean to protect, it seems appropriate to just be explicit about that and the debate can pick up from there. The anti-abortion movement should be called "pro-innocent, human life which desires to continue", not just "pro-life". (At which point there is still no problem until you become anti-choice.)
Otherwise it seems that those who truly believe they are pro-life should really step back for a moment of self-examination about their stance on war, poverty, euthanasia, the death penalty, self-defense, veganism, pest control, gardening, etc.
Actually, I'm against all killing whether it's innocent, guilty, friend, enemy, criminal, terminally ill, etc. I think it's wrong. So in that sense, I'm definitely "pro-life".
I'm also anti-abortion in that I have reasons to oppose it that aren't even based upon whether it's a life or what my religious views say. I truly believe it's wrong on many levels.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Here's another thing I often wonder about: Do people not remember that there are many cultures in the world where women don't really have a choice in the matter of sex (especially with their husbands) or contraception? I know some anti-choice people think there should be an exception for rape, but in these situations it's not really considered rape.
All I'm saying is, women's "choice" to have sex is often not as black and white as most of us in the U.S. have to luxury of believing it is. (And the U.S. only accounts for 3% of the abortions in the world.) I think that's something worth keeping in mind when we think we can judge what another woman's choice should be.
Humans aren't special...and a few less roaming this planet is a good thing. I say we err on the side of not starting the life of yet another human.
Sure the Native American's weren't so enthused with these guns as they were used to systematically wiped them out....but woo hoo...we beat the British.