Should Keeping Abortions legal be left up to the States?

1235789

Comments

  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...so you're asking me "Suppose you don't need evidence of anything to believe something, wouldn't you believe everything?" The answer is, of course, yes.



    Your "theological answer" is based on an unproveable maxim: god exists. In other words, your "answer" is just a question.



    The founding fathers got most things right.



    Not "in spite of" at all. Just because Judeo-Christian values are primarily borrowed does not invalidate them or make them a good target for scorn. Judeo-Christian values are largely a good thing.



    The belief that there may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is completely uncredible. Credibility would imply some evidentiary track record or at least something on which one can base a belief. Bigfoot might still be out there somewhere. God might still be out there somewhere. But to say that either exists is to suggest that evidence has absolutely no bearing on your belief and that objective reality has no importance to you.



    That would suggest that you know something about god. And since your only ability to know anything is via your senses, you've contradicted yourself.



    I haven't said you're arrogant. I've said you're contradictory.



    "Better job" implies a standard against which that job can be measured. In terms of your perspective, I doubt I could do a better job. In terms of my perspective, I certainly could. The neat thing about "human contract", however, is that each of us could set up a system of legal and moral governance based on our own particular standards.



    Contracts are certainly easily over-rideable! The funny thing is, however, is that you're pretending that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or Roe v Wade have any relationship to a contract.



    How can I relinquish something I don't have, DBTS?

    Well at least this go round i agree with half of what you've said.

    I'm going back to daytrading for now.

    At least he market doesn't argue back!
    :D

    [why are we arguing if "god" is outside of the senses or not? Isn't that implicit in the "understanding" of "god"? Creator existed. Creator creates the universe. The creator exists outside of said universe. Your senses exist withIN said universe. Question: A clown blows up a baloon. Can the baloon ever "know" the clown? Does the clown not exist because of this? I know that is a goofball analogy, but i think the premise is consistent here]
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If that's what a particular state wants then they should be able to self regulate if the added paperwork and infrastructure is not an encumbrance. I'm thinking it would be unnecessary division...perhaps not. It should be seen as the state of affairs. When you live in a state that's the state, if the status quo is pro or against...well that's what it is....feel free to vote away. If some people can't deal with the state of affairs so to speak.....the country is free to roam.


    i think a step sort of lowering the decision to the state level is just making it evident it should be and is ultimately a personal decision, by it being a federal decision that abortion is not illegal creates clinics and proper ways to perform these rather than making the woman who is actually carrying what could become a person an outcast. You should not be labeled a bad person simply because you cannot afford (money and oppurtunity cost as well) to have a kid in this country, especially when its other federal laws and decision makers that make it so hard to survive on your own.

    it probably appears that the federal government is making the decision, but i think they are just making a non decision, which is the right one and this is why we cant have candidates win that don't understand this.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    mammasan wrote:
    Well no fetus, prior to 25 weeks of gestation, can survive outside the womb no matter how many life supporting measures are used. To me a fetus under this 25 week period is not really a living organism, it is a part of it's mother.

    to YOU. i happen to agree with you. all i'm saying is it's a reasonable, but still arbitrary, line and i can understand where pro-lifers are coming from.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    sweetpotato wrote:
    well, in the opinion of those who support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, it's not a "baby" until it's viable.

    Kind of bold to kill on the basis of an opinion, huh?
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Jackieboy wrote:
    America, the home of the christians :(

    Thank God! ;)
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    why are we arguing if "god" is outside of the senses or not? Isn't that implicit in the "understanding" of "god"?

    Nothing is implicit in the "understanding of god". Implicit implies some chain of logic or inferrence from an object, which in turn would imply some knowledge or understanding of said object.
    Creator existed. Creator creates the universe. The creator exists outside of said universe. Your senses exist withIN said universe. Question: A clown blows up a baloon. Can the baloon ever "know" the clown? Does the clown not exist because of this? I know that is a goofball analogy, but i think the premise is consistent here]

    It is a goofball analogy, but I see what you're getting at and the reasoning is fine. The problem is that you, as a baloon, are assuming there's a clown to begin and, even worse, that the clown has laid down a bunch of orders by which all should live. And you're doing so without any evidence whatsoever.

    Again, there certainly could be a God (or Gods). There could also not be a God. As a human being, however, there is absolutely no possible justification from which one could make either statement definitively. Your only tool of reasoning, as a human, is logic, and your only inputs into this tool are your senses. Since God, by definition, is alogical and supersensory, claims regarding its existence are completely self-defeating.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    Kind of bold to kill on the basis of an opinion, huh?

    No more bold than it is to do anything on the basis of an opinion.
  • Yoyoyo
    Yoyoyo Posts: 310
    farfromglorified wrote:

    the nature of a fetus is much different than the nature of an individual human being.... You then, in effect, have a right to self-determination within your environment. A fetus, by its nature, does not qualify as such. By its nature, a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother to continue to survive and its nature therefore carries with it a right to dependence as opposed to a right of self-determination.


    When does the "right to dependence" end and when does the self-determination happen? It could be argued that a 4 month old is entirely dependent on another being to live.
    No need to be void, or save up on life

    You got to spend it all
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    lol

    This is the song that never ends
    Yes, it goes on and on my friendssssssssssss
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    According to your definition, ALL internal parasites are not seperate living organisms, only "part of their hosts".

    What ELSE is needed as a distinction?

    You guys just need to give up the charade.
    I'm not NECESSARILY saying i disagree with abortion, but i disagree with the veil of science to cover up what fundamentaly is about choice, and NOT about compassion or concern for the moral ramifications of an action.

    The admission should be: The fetus IS alive, but it isn't really an issue. It is more important to provide women who got pregnant but didn't WANT to be with a CHOICE to rid themselves of this occurance -- REGARDLESS of the consideration of "life".

    QUESTION: Why do so many women who have abortions feel SO HORRIBLE about themselves afterwards? Surely they aren't upset about squashing a NON-LIVING object? No. They ARE. They KNOW it is alive, and their conscious is upset over the weight of the decision -- they know they did not want a baby, but they didn't want to kill it either.

    I don't know why so many women feel horrible after an abortion as I am neither a women nor ever had an abortion. I am merely stating fact. You can argue the ethics and morality of abortion all you like but the fact remains that a fetus prior to 25 weeks of gestation cannot live outside of the womb even with the assistance of modern life support measures. To me that seems like a great place to draw the line.

    I personally would never have an abortion, but that is my belief and it should not be forced upon another human being and since that fetus is not considered a human being, by scientific terms, it does not have the same rights as we do.

    I use science to define my position because unlike ethics and morals, scietific facts do not vary between person to person. It is the only consistant in this debate. Your ethics and morals may not be the same as mine but neither of us can dispute the scientific facts.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't know why so many women feel horrible after an abortion as I am neither a women nor ever had an abortion. I am merely stating fact. You can argue the ethics and morality of abortion all you like but the fact remains that a fetus prior to 25 weeks of gestation cannot live outside of the womb even with the assistance of modern life support measures. To me that seems like a great place to draw the line.

    I personally would never have an abortion, but that is my belief and it should not be forced upon another human being and since that fetus is not considered a human being, by scientific terms, it does not have the same rights as we do.

    I use science to define my position because unlike ethics and morals, scietific facts do not vary between person to person. It is the only consistant in this debate. Your ethics and morals may not be the same as mine but neither of us can dispute the scientific facts.

    you know what made my pro-choice position waver the most?

    scientific facts do not vary between person to person. but they do vary. formerly, flat earth was scientific fact. you say the fetus cannot survive outside the womb using MODERN technology... what if in 10 years it can? does that change your view on when life "begins" if we can keep babies alive that are only 24 weeks old? 23? 20? 15? is that how you make your decision? science is NOT constant. it is always changing with new discoveries and what we think we know about fetal growth today could be completely altered tomorrow.

    that's why i changed to a pretty neutral or ambivalent opinion on abortion. there is no "fact" here, only conjecture and best guesses. some appear more sound than others. but nobody has the "fact" of where life actually begins... not the pro-choicers, nor the pro-lifers.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    soulsinging wrote:
    you know what made my pro-choice position waver the most?

    scientific facts do not vary between person to person. but they do vary. formerly, flat earth was scientific fact. you say the fetus cannot survive outside the womb using MODERN technology... what if in 10 years it can? does that change your view on when life "begins" if we can keep babies alive that are only 24 weeks old? 23? 20? 15? is that how you make your decision? science is NOT constant. it is always changing with new discoveries and what we think we know about fetal growth today could be completely altered tomorrow.

    that's why i changed to a pretty neutral or ambivalent opinion on abortion. there is no "fact" here, only conjecture and best guesses. some appear more sound than others. but nobody has the "fact" of where life actually begins... not the pro-choicers, nor the pro-lifers.

    Yes then my position on abortion will evolve along with modern medicine and science. I base my position on abortion on science that is not to say that everyone else should do the same. Everyone has a right to view this topic as they wish, in the end though this is a decision that should be left up to the mother, father, and their conscience.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • MahoganySouls
    MahoganySouls Posts: 357
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Five month old babies don't meet the standard I listed, so I don't know why you're bringing them up.
    Can a five month old feed themselves? Nope. So by your reasoning they need a "host" and to be cared for. Thus aborted.
    "When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
  • MahoganySouls
    MahoganySouls Posts: 357
    farfromglorified wrote:
    the fetus is not a being with rights until that fetus is a distinct human being.
    in your opinion
    "When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
  • MahoganySouls
    MahoganySouls Posts: 357
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No more bold than it is to do anything on the basis of an opinion.
    So based on YOUR opinion only, not laws or social tolerance, if a pregnant woman was injured by another person and her fetus died, would you stand behind your opinion that it is not viable anyways and not a human yet so thus the perpetrator should NOT be held accountable? After all, it is just cells and can be replaced in your opinion.
    "When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Mestophar wrote:
    When does the "right to dependence" end and when does the self-determination happen?

    Whenever the infant has vacated its mother. Typically, that means birth.
    It could be argued that a 4 month old is entirely dependent on another being to live.

    Not on a single individual it can't. Anyone can feed an infant.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    MahoganySouls wrote:
    So based on YOUR opinion only, not laws or social tolerance, if a pregnant woman was injured by another person and her fetus died, would you stand behind your opinion that it is not viable anyways and not a human yet so thus the perpetrator should NOT be held accountable?

    Anyone who willingly injures another person should be held accountable. But the person in your example is not a murderer.
    After all, it is just cells and can be replaced in your opinion.

    Ummm...that goes for all of us, fetus or otherwise. But that's also irrelevant.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    MahoganySouls wrote:
    in your opinion

    Ok...please tell me how a fetus is a "distinct human being" and tell me what rights it has.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No more bold than it is to do anything on the basis of an opinion.

    I'll give you that, but the ramifications of this act are a bit more severe than other actions undertaken on the basis of an opinion.
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    I'll give you that, but the ramifications of this act are a bit more severe than other actions undertaken on the basis of an opinion.

    That would be an opnion, wouldn't it ;)

Categories