abortion / animal rights / death penalty / etc.
rldriver2
Posts: 27
First of all: I'm all about having a civilized discussion and I'm certainly not into Bible thumping to back up my views (glancing at Juberoo).
Things are a little slow on the Moving Train this morning so I'm just trying to stir things up a bit (evil grin). In other words, take my name calling with a grain of salt.
Why do hippy liberals ;-) tend to be about animal rights and anti death penalty scenes out of respect for life and it's quality but at the same time support abortion rights with respect for choice over life? Exclude extenuating circumstances that involve rape, incest, and the mother's life. Why does the concern for the freedom to be alive and well not extend to something as innocent and pure as a newly conceived life?
Fire away...
Things are a little slow on the Moving Train this morning so I'm just trying to stir things up a bit (evil grin). In other words, take my name calling with a grain of salt.
Why do hippy liberals ;-) tend to be about animal rights and anti death penalty scenes out of respect for life and it's quality but at the same time support abortion rights with respect for choice over life? Exclude extenuating circumstances that involve rape, incest, and the mother's life. Why does the concern for the freedom to be alive and well not extend to something as innocent and pure as a newly conceived life?
Fire away...
Raleigh 1992 - Raleigh 2003 - Charlotte 2003 - Asheville 2004 - Lollapolooza 2007
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Abortion: It is simply a matter of when a life is considered a life and when it isn't. IN MY OPINION, a fetus is not a living, especially in the first 3 months. It wouldn't survive on it's own.
Again, that's all my opinion.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
i dont think a fetus is alive.
im not huge on animal rights. i dont believe in intentional cruelty to them, but shit happens.
i see the death penalty as expensive, unnecessary, and prone to abuse or mistakes that are unacceptable.
A new child born naturally after 9 months in the womb wouldn't survive by itself either. How it is nurtured changes through out it's devlopment inside and outside of the womb, what is significant about 3 months?
The vast majority of pro-choice people have a point where they consider the fetus as being a "life" and at that point are against abortion. In the first few weeks after conception, to me, it's just a mass of cells in a yolk sac that has the potential for life.
My wife is 20 weeks pregnant, and at our first ultrasound 5 weeks in, there was no heartbeat, no visible formation, just a yolk sac... While we were beyond thrilled that she was pregnant, I wouldn't consider it "life" at that point.
Most pro-choice people are anti-abortion, but don't feel that the gov't should make laws against that choice.
There are some people who don't have a problem with second or third trimesters, but I think they are in the very small minority. And a lot of the fight against things like the partial birth abortion bans are done more so out of fear of the slippery slope argument, not that they think partial birth abortions are ok.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I am all for animal rights... not the crazy peta point of view, but I think people who harm, neglect or kill animals for pleasure or whatever need to be dealt with severely. That being said, I am for hunting if you actually eat what you shoot and don't do it for sport/pleasure and waste the meat.
I am anti-death penalty, not because I am against that form of punishment, but more so because we can't seem to guarantee that innocent people aren't getting convicted. The innocence project has exonorated over 100 people wrongfully convicted, and I don't want to take the risk of people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Now if you are caught in the act and there is indisputable proof, then I am ok with it.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I hear you. I'm a "conservative" that loves cats, dogs, Bambi, cute mice, eats meat like a mad man, would own a gun if I wasn't scared I'd shoot myself in the knee cap (but could never shoot Bambi's mom) and works in the human service field (if the people I vote for have their way I'll be looking for another job).
it needs to be fed, yes. but in early pregnancy, it cannot breath or maintain a heartbeat on its own. that is the difference.
I think that it could make sense that some people are pro-life and support the death penalty though. The difference there is an innocent life and someone that may not be so innocent. I could see justification in the execution of a convicted murderer (although I'm reluctant to feel comfortable leaving that up to my government) but still oppose abortion. That's not always hypocrisy imo.
Devil's Advocate speaking here: how is this different than a patient in emergency in the hospital? Suppose in the beginning, they would die without doctor assistance or machine assistance...but they get repaired through surgery and time and can possibly go back to their life normally.
During the time in which they are unable to breathe/maintain a heartbeat by themself, is it ok to just kill them without legal repercussion? I guess I just don't see why one dependent lifeform is more valued than the other dependent lifeform.
All this occurs after an egg is fertilized though. The sole reason an egg is fertilized is to create life. Levels of dependency on the mother doesn't determine the value of the life.
i see no problem with letting them pass. in that case, such medical decisions are made by loved ones... parents, spouses, etc. they decide whether the person lives or dies, whether the life support is continued. i see abortion the same... a loved one making the decision as to whether or not the life support is maintained.
levels of biological processes determine whether something is able to maintain living. i don't consider vegetable on life support to be alive either.
if the mother works out too hard during her pregnancy and causes a miscarriage, should she be imprisoned for manslaughter?
Animal rights: I think PETA needs to be WAY more pragmatic, as there are some legitimate cruelty issues. By no means do I consider myself a crusader, but still feel that mistreatment of pets, etc. is wrong. If the implication is that liberals favor animals over people (or hold them on the same level), I don't think that is usually the case
Capital Punishment: Most libs are not comfortable with state-sponsored killing. Personally, I was pro-capital punishment for years. But just the thought that even one innocent person could be put to death is enough to make me anti-capital punishment. To suggest that any mistakes like this are worth it because the death penalty is just so noble is odd to me. The value of death vs. life in prison (which is, ironically, usually less expensive than the death penalty), is not so great that it is worth those mistakes.
Abortion: My view will probably piss off pro-lifers more than most lib views. The following two reasons:
1. Overpopulation. The last thing the planet needs is more people, particularly unwanted people. It's actually part of the reason I don't want kids (though its mainly the times I see them throwing fits in public).
2. I do not know when it is "alive" or "human" but I do believe this...you are destroying nobody's hopes and dreams. The fetus has no friends, no dreams and its termination will really not be a loss for anyone. The world will not miss that fetus. In other words, "big fuckin' deal." Seriously. The unborn that so many advocate for, nobely stating that they are "fighting for those who cannot defend themselves" will only be "missed" in theoretical terms. All that said, a legal line has to be drawn, because you could make the same argument about a newborn. For me, it actually does go in line with what some of the above said. I am more of a first trimester proponant, because, while my "no hopes and dreams" argument continues to hold true, you'll be stunned to know that the further along it gets, the less comfortable I am. Perhaps I contradict myself, but that is how I feel.
Actually, to remain consistant, she should get the chair.
That'd be kinda hard to do. For "him", wouldn't it?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Abortion is a consequence of an open and free society, I think. It is also a consequence of poor education. It is also a consequence of the christian right fundamentalist's crazed crusade for abstinance.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Note to self: be grateful soulsinging is not in family. End note.
- Joe is on death row for committing many, many heinous crimes over the years, rape, murder, growing pot, whatever....you get the idea. He's scheduled for execution next week.
- Bob the prison guard is under stress. His wife left him, he's feeling pissed, whatever. To relieve stress, he shoots Joe in the head a few days ahead of Joe's execution, effectively killing him and maybe saving the state a few bucks.
Should Bob be punished in a court of law? Legally? Yes. Morally? Probably.
How does this relate to abortion? No one really cares for Joe, given his past, but Bob takes out his frustrations on him and will be punished accordingly. In terms of an abortion, it's clear no one cared for an aborted fetus, but no one is being punished either. Why should a mother be allowed to take her frustrations out on an unborn fetus with no punishment? Even when I was pro-choice, the answer to that last question eluded me.
Take out her frustrations?
What kind of fucked up assinine thinking is this?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And that Crusade ignores the fundamental facts on human sexuality, free society, and access to education.
It is an Authoritarian Crusade, by people who tell us they have a god-given responsibilty to their countrymen to miseducate, oppress, and try to get a suck and fuck in the airport restroom when they can.
Derrick, go fuck yourself.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That sticky about dropping bombs on each other at the top of the page is not invisible.
See the Posting Guidelines for a reminder of your agreement with us.
Thank you.
Admin
That's where the whole pro-choice argument escapes me. What makes a child (born or unborn) part of a woman's body or an object that can be thrown away if it's not wanted? The pro-choice mind set that puts so little emphasis on the fact that the choice to have an abortion is in fact a choice that terminates a human life. A fetus is not like the arm you get a tattoo on or the nose you get surgically altered. IMO it's not a body part that falls under the "freedom of a woman to do what she wants with her body" as is so often the argument.
Nine out of ten times it's the people that share markymark550's sentiment that are shouting about cruelty of puting a convicted murderer to death. How is an innocent life human life of less value than that of a life long criminal or an ill tempered Pit Bull?