I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?
There is another thread at the top of the board that's much better for this question, but basically, answer me this...
If you can prove that human life beings at conception, as opposed to birth, cognitive function, etc. etc. or any other arbitrary moment of a multi-step process that does not involve your own personal belief. Than you may have an argument. Until then, you are legislating your personal beliefs upon a population that in large part does not agree with you. Until you can prove this (and you can't, because the only person/entity that would know this is God), then you have no argument. You want the entire population to follow your own personal morality.
When it comes to the health of the mother, I will concede, because in that case it would be an issue of the lesser of two evils. Is it worse that the mother should die or the baby should die? That's a question that needs to be addressed and decided with the utmost care at the time.
And that's the way it is done.
The mother if she doesnt have a next of kin or a husband that would make that decision they are assigned a proxy that makes that decision, if they are unconscious and can not decide from themselves or made their choice known ahead of time.
But if it was my sister and I had to decide in between her life or her baby's life you bet I will go for my sister unless my sister herself requests for me not to do so.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.
If the desire to die (or, more accurately, the desire to not be born) requires a fetus to have thought (as you say above) then the desire to live must also require a fetus to have thought, thereby proving my point that a fetus cannot desire to live.
I am not saying anything. I'm not saying they are thinking. I am not saying anything.
All I am saying is you are comparing the suicide rates of adults to fetuses in the womb. I wish I knew how to bold that statement. I'm hoping you're just trying to make a point, and if so, go for it. If you really believe this, as I said, please think this through.
You just put a [ b ] before the sentence and a [ / b ] after the sentence (without the spaces). You can also reply to this post and see how I bolded your sentence above.
The solution to this (or at least, I think the closest we can get to a solution) does not need to be "invented." It's already here. Every study on the topic seems to have shown that countries where abortions are legal that also have easy access to contraceptives consistently have the lowest rates of abortion. We should be teaching contraceptive use, we should be funding it properly. We should work to remove the stigma that it has in some sections of this country and in the mind of many people. That way, life is protected and the mother's choice is ensured.
And if some pro-lifers wanted to put their money where their mouth was, they'd demand more access for contraceptives. They'd want education in schools about it.
I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain.
So you're cool with abortion before this point then?
As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant,
:rolleyes:
Not another person who has no idea about the severe pregnancy complications women have all the time, every day. (Or are you the same person who just keeps saying this in different threads? )
If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?
Obama said in the last debate that he would support a ban on all late-term abortions. His stance on this subject has been mis-represented and thousands of people just like you have bought into it.
Edit: I see that Mrs. Vedder beat me to this point.
Obama said in the last debate that he would support a ban on all late-term abortions. His stance on this subject has been mis-represented and thousands of people just like you have bought into it.
Edit: I see that Mrs. Vedder beat me to this point.
No prob
It's worth repeating it as many chose to ignore that CRUCIAL piece of information when attacking Senator Obama.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
Plus, plenty of people don't want to live who don't take an active enough role to kill themselves. Plenty more would have chosen to never be born, if given that choice.
suicides of foetuses = miscarriages. imo.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The solution to this (or at least, I think the closest we can get to a solution) does not need to be "invented." It's already here. Every study on the topic seems to have shown that countries where abortions are legal that also have easy access to contraceptives consistently have the lowest rates of abortion. We should be teaching contraceptive use, we should be funding it properly. We should work to remove the stigma that it has in some sections of this country and in the mind of many people. That way, life is protected and the mother's choice is ensured.
And if some pro-lifers wanted to put their money where their mouth was, they'd demand more access for contraceptives. They'd want education in schools about it.
If you keep making so much sense you'll have to be banned from this thread!
Haha! Good point. Maybe we should be looking at the miscarriage rate then, instead of the suicide rate. And we all know (I hope) that the miscarriage rate is HUGE.
You want the entire population to follow your own personal morality.
So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Not another person who has no idea about the severe pregnancy complications women have all the time, every day.
I said, if the life of the mother is in danger it becomes a case of the lesser of two evils.
Otherwise, last time I checked sex was primarily a means of reproduction. Do it at your own risk. Accept the consequences of your actions. You do not have the right to take away someone's right to live because you made a mistake. Put it up for adoption if you can't afford to take care of it, there's no shame in that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have sex or anything crazy like that. All I'm saying is that it's illogical to do it without accepting any of the possible resulting consequences. I don't oppose the use of contraception or anything like that. I only oppose abortion because I feel it is just as wrong as killing someone.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.
No, I want the exact opposite of what you're asking. You are legislating your beliefs because you feel that life begins at conception and any form of abortion. I am saying it is impossible to answer such a question, and since that questioned cannot be answered, any legislation outlawing abortion would be based upon the personal belief of a minority. With no facts to back you up, this is unconstitutional.
And you're right...it is about what the majority wants. There is no overwhelming majority in this country, but 64% of this nation, to one degree or another, are pro-choice. YOU are the one that is proposing to limit the freedom of that 64%. Only 19% believe abortion should be illegal at all times: http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm
Haha! Good point. Maybe we should be looking at the miscarriage rate then, instead of the suicide rate. And we all know (I hope) that the miscarriage rate is HUGE.
and im not even including those pregnancies that are simply absorbed back into the wombs lining and expelled through menstruation. not all fertilized eggs even make it to the embryonic stage.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.
How do pro-choice people want the rest of the population to follow their own personal morality? That's an oxymoron. A pro-choice position, by definition, does not seek to tell women what to do in this situation.
If it's about what the majority wants, please note that the majority want abortion to be legal. So then I guess we won't be hearing any more complaints from you, huh?
they want to force you to have your baby. but they won't help you pay for.
then they want you to put it up for adoption if you don't want it.
then they don't want to pay for eduction. or welfare.
So, have your baby, we won't help pay for any of the costs, we won't pay for education.
So I guess they want a bunch of uneducated poor Americans running around...
Whoever said anything about not paying for education???
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
they want to force you to have your baby. but they won't help you pay for.
then they want you to put it up for adoption if you don't want it.
then they don't want to pay for eduction. or welfare.
So, have your baby, we won't help pay for any of the costs, we won't pay for education.
So I guess they want a bunch of uneducated poor Americans running around...
well who else is gonna fight in their wars? these forced birth babies are needed for the good of the nation. for the procurement and security of your freedoms.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
please note that the majority want abortion to be legal.
Prove it.
Roe v. Wade was a court decision, and therefore does not, by any means, reflect what the majority may or may not want. Hopefully you know that already, but if you don't, there it is.
So if I believe it's immoral to kill someone, and that's a law, does that mean a set of morals is being imposed on you or someone else? If you claim to have no morals then why is murder wrong? How do we determine what's right or wrong if we can have no personal morals? What if someone thinks they should be allowed to kill someone else, aren't we imposing our personal view on them? What gives us the right to deny that person the "right" to kill someone?
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I said, if the life of the mother is in danger it becomes a case of the lesser of two evils.
Otherwise, last time I checked sex was primarily a means of reproduction. Do it at your own risk. Accept the consequences of your actions. You do not have the right to take away someone's right to live because you made a mistake. Put it up for adoption if you can't afford to take care of it, there's no shame in that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have sex or anything crazy like that. All I'm saying is that it's illogical to do it without accepting any of the possible resulting consequences. I don't oppose the use of contraception or anything like that. I only oppose abortion because I feel it is just as wrong as killing someone.
But you referred to pregnancy as merely an "inconvenience" and that's inaccurate and disrespectful to the women who have pregnancy complications.
You say she made her choice so now she should accept the consequences, but women do not choose to have pregnancy complications. If they were an expected part of pregnancy, they wouldn't be called complications.
You need to recognize what a toll pregnancy and childbirth can take on a woman's body. I don't understand how people can defend a fetus at all costs but think of a pregnancy as trivial.
(Although I should expect this given the disrespect people have for women, since the addition of the woman is the only difference between a fetus and a pregnancy.)
No, I want the exact opposite of what you're asking. You are legislating your beliefs because you feel that life begins at conception and any form of abortion. I am saying it is impossible to answer such a question, and since that questioned cannot be answered, any legislation outlawing abortion would be based upon the personal belief of a minority. With no facts to back you up, this is unconstitutional.
And you're right...it is about what the majority wants. There is no overwhelming majority in this country, but 64% of this nation, to one degree or another, are pro-choice. YOU are the one that is proposing to limit the freedom of that 64%. Only 19% believe abortion should be illegal at all times: http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm
Here you go, Matty. That website will also tell you more polls you can go to to show you that the majority prefers pro-choice. And if you can get back to me on my first point, I'd appreciate it.
But you referred to pregnancy as merely an "inconvenience" and that's inaccurate and disrespectful to the women who have pregnancy complications.
You say she made her choice so now she should accept the consequences, but women do not choose to have pregnancy complications. If they were an expected part of pregnancy, they wouldn't be called complications.
You need to recognize what a toll pregnancy and childbirth can take on a woman's body. I don't understand how people can defend a fetus at all costs but think of a pregnancy as trivial.
(Although I should expect this given the disrespect people have for women, since the addition of the woman is the only difference between a fetus and a pregnancy.)
For the third time, I would support abortion in cases on the mother's life being in danger.
Regarding the part of your post I embolded:
I don't understand how people can defend a woman's "right" to an abortion at all costs but think of killing a fetus as trivial.
You're comparing pregnancy to death, something I find very appalling. Again, talking in terms of when the mothers life is not in danger.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?
Here you go, Matty. That website will also tell you more polls you can go to to show you that the majority prefers pro-choice. And if you can get back to me on my first point, I'd appreciate it.
Why not get back to me on mine in my very first post in this thread? Where do we get this notion that a woman has the "right" to have an abortion?
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Roe v. Wade was a court decision, and therefore does not, by any means, reflect what the majority may or may not want. Hopefully you know that already, but if you don't, there it is.
And in case you didn't believe that other website...
Why not get back to me on mine in my very first post in this thread? Where do we get this notion that a woman has the "right" to have an abortion?
Well, let's clear this part up first. You said, and I quote that "it's about what the majority wants." The majority believe abortion should not be illegal. The majority believe it should be legal with some restrictions. The majority do not believe we should overturn Roe V. Wade.
So, this makes your point moot, according to your own standards.
It's not your LIFE. That baby's life still needs to be protected, in my opinion, and people have no right to deny that baby life. Whether or not it "wants it" (one of the weirdest and most insubstantial arguments I've ever seen regarding this issue, posted by people in this thread) is indeterminable.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Well, let's clear this part up first. You said, and I quote that "it's about what the majority wants." The majority believe abortion should not be illegal. The majority believe it should be legal with some restrictions. The majority do not believe we should overturn Roe V. Wade.
So, this makes your point moot, according to your own standards.
Um, no. There's still the issue of whether or not it's constitutional. Of course, the court ordered that it was, somehow. But I'm disputing that very decision because I cannot see how it's constitutional to have an abortion.
The court cited the 14th Amendment as the basis for it's decision, and yet in that very same Amendment lies this text:
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
To argue that the baby is somehow not yet alive is wrong. The cells themselves are alive, even before the baby is actually fully developed. The baby would never form if there wasn't life from the very beginning of the process. Therefore, you'd have to argue that the baby is somehow not yet human. Yet, if you were to look at it's genetic makeup, it's clearly a human being. When you say life doesn't begin at conception what are you talking about? The very fact that conception occurred means there's life.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.
It's about what the majority wants, MattyJoe. You said it, not me. Wouldn't this then make your point, as you put it, 'insubstantial?'
Comments
There is another thread at the top of the board that's much better for this question, but basically, answer me this...
If you can prove that human life beings at conception, as opposed to birth, cognitive function, etc. etc. or any other arbitrary moment of a multi-step process that does not involve your own personal belief. Than you may have an argument. Until then, you are legislating your personal beliefs upon a population that in large part does not agree with you. Until you can prove this (and you can't, because the only person/entity that would know this is God), then you have no argument. You want the entire population to follow your own personal morality.
And that's the way it is done.
The mother if she doesnt have a next of kin or a husband that would make that decision they are assigned a proxy that makes that decision, if they are unconscious and can not decide from themselves or made their choice known ahead of time.
But if it was my sister and I had to decide in between her life or her baby's life you bet I will go for my sister unless my sister herself requests for me not to do so.
If the desire to die (or, more accurately, the desire to not be born) requires a fetus to have thought (as you say above) then the desire to live must also require a fetus to have thought, thereby proving my point that a fetus cannot desire to live.
Just messin saveup....
But I believe you are on the right track for a solution,
at least you're thinking
compromise...I'm not for abortions either... I just don't believe you can make them illegal without other considerations
You just put a [ b ] before the sentence and a [ / b ] after the sentence (without the spaces). You can also reply to this post and see how I bolded your sentence above.
And if some pro-lifers wanted to put their money where their mouth was, they'd demand more access for contraceptives. They'd want education in schools about it.
So you're cool with abortion before this point then?
:rolleyes:
Not another person who has no idea about the severe pregnancy complications women have all the time, every day. (Or are you the same person who just keeps saying this in different threads?
That statement can go both ways: You have no right to deny someone's right to not be born, just because they can't make that choice for themselves.
Obama said in the last debate that he would support a ban on all late-term abortions. His stance on this subject has been mis-represented and thousands of people just like you have bought into it.
Edit: I see that Mrs. Vedder beat me to this point.
No prob
It's worth repeating it as many chose to ignore that CRUCIAL piece of information when attacking Senator Obama.
suicides of foetuses = miscarriages. imo.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If you keep making so much sense you'll have to be banned from this thread!
Haha! Good point. Maybe we should be looking at the miscarriage rate then, instead of the suicide rate. And we all know (I hope) that the miscarriage rate is HUGE.
So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.
-Reagan
I said, if the life of the mother is in danger it becomes a case of the lesser of two evils.
Otherwise, last time I checked sex was primarily a means of reproduction. Do it at your own risk. Accept the consequences of your actions. You do not have the right to take away someone's right to live because you made a mistake. Put it up for adoption if you can't afford to take care of it, there's no shame in that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have sex or anything crazy like that. All I'm saying is that it's illogical to do it without accepting any of the possible resulting consequences. I don't oppose the use of contraception or anything like that. I only oppose abortion because I feel it is just as wrong as killing someone.
-Reagan
No, I want the exact opposite of what you're asking. You are legislating your beliefs because you feel that life begins at conception and any form of abortion. I am saying it is impossible to answer such a question, and since that questioned cannot be answered, any legislation outlawing abortion would be based upon the personal belief of a minority. With no facts to back you up, this is unconstitutional.
And you're right...it is about what the majority wants. There is no overwhelming majority in this country, but 64% of this nation, to one degree or another, are pro-choice. YOU are the one that is proposing to limit the freedom of that 64%. Only 19% believe abortion should be illegal at all times: http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm
and im not even including those pregnancies that are simply absorbed back into the wombs lining and expelled through menstruation. not all fertilized eggs even make it to the embryonic stage.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
they want to force you to have your baby. but they won't help you pay for.
then they want you to put it up for adoption if you don't want it.
then they don't want to pay for eduction. or welfare.
So, have your baby, we won't help pay for any of the costs, we won't pay for education.
So I guess they want a bunch of uneducated poor Americans running around...
How do pro-choice people want the rest of the population to follow their own personal morality? That's an oxymoron. A pro-choice position, by definition, does not seek to tell women what to do in this situation.
If it's about what the majority wants, please note that the majority want abortion to be legal. So then I guess we won't be hearing any more complaints from you, huh?
Whoever said anything about not paying for education???
-Reagan
well who else is gonna fight in their wars? these forced birth babies are needed for the good of the nation. for the procurement and security of your freedoms.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Prove it.
Roe v. Wade was a court decision, and therefore does not, by any means, reflect what the majority may or may not want. Hopefully you know that already, but if you don't, there it is.
So if I believe it's immoral to kill someone, and that's a law, does that mean a set of morals is being imposed on you or someone else? If you claim to have no morals then why is murder wrong? How do we determine what's right or wrong if we can have no personal morals? What if someone thinks they should be allowed to kill someone else, aren't we imposing our personal view on them? What gives us the right to deny that person the "right" to kill someone?
-Reagan
But you referred to pregnancy as merely an "inconvenience" and that's inaccurate and disrespectful to the women who have pregnancy complications.
You say she made her choice so now she should accept the consequences, but women do not choose to have pregnancy complications. If they were an expected part of pregnancy, they wouldn't be called complications.
You need to recognize what a toll pregnancy and childbirth can take on a woman's body. I don't understand how people can defend a fetus at all costs but think of a pregnancy as trivial.
(Although I should expect this given the disrespect people have for women, since the addition of the woman is the only difference between a fetus and a pregnancy.)
Here you go, Matty. That website will also tell you more polls you can go to to show you that the majority prefers pro-choice. And if you can get back to me on my first point, I'd appreciate it.
For the third time, I would support abortion in cases on the mother's life being in danger.
Regarding the part of your post I embolded:
I don't understand how people can defend a woman's "right" to an abortion at all costs but think of killing a fetus as trivial.
You're comparing pregnancy to death, something I find very appalling. Again, talking in terms of when the mothers life is not in danger.
-Reagan
Why not get back to me on mine in my very first post in this thread? Where do we get this notion that a woman has the "right" to have an abortion?
-Reagan
And in case you didn't believe that other website...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
"Most Americans oppose the idea of passing laws to outlaw abortion and they soundly reject the idea of overturning Roe. v. Wade."
Well, let's clear this part up first. You said, and I quote that "it's about what the majority wants." The majority believe abortion should not be illegal. The majority believe it should be legal with some restrictions. The majority do not believe we should overturn Roe V. Wade.
So, this makes your point moot, according to your own standards.
It's not your LIFE. That baby's life still needs to be protected, in my opinion, and people have no right to deny that baby life. Whether or not it "wants it" (one of the weirdest and most insubstantial arguments I've ever seen regarding this issue, posted by people in this thread) is indeterminable.
-Reagan
Um, no. There's still the issue of whether or not it's constitutional. Of course, the court ordered that it was, somehow. But I'm disputing that very decision because I cannot see how it's constitutional to have an abortion.
The court cited the 14th Amendment as the basis for it's decision, and yet in that very same Amendment lies this text:
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
To argue that the baby is somehow not yet alive is wrong. The cells themselves are alive, even before the baby is actually fully developed. The baby would never form if there wasn't life from the very beginning of the process. Therefore, you'd have to argue that the baby is somehow not yet human. Yet, if you were to look at it's genetic makeup, it's clearly a human being. When you say life doesn't begin at conception what are you talking about? The very fact that conception occurred means there's life.
-Reagan
It's about what the majority wants, MattyJoe. You said it, not me. Wouldn't this then make your point, as you put it, 'insubstantial?'