Abortion & Capital Punishment

[billvon 3,070]

>If it's sort of wrong and none of your business what does it really
>matter how much of it occurs?

You are confusing things that should be legally prohibited with things that are just bad.

Smoking is legal; it is also undoubtedly bad for you. If you had a friend with asthma and a family history of lung cancer, would you try to talk him out of smoking? Why would you do that, if it's legal? Answer that question and you may have your answer to MY question.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

[


I BELIEVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE FETUS TRUMPS THE RIGHT FOR THE WOMAN TO CHOOSE AN ABORTION. I BELIEVE THIS BECAUSE THE WOMAN (AND MAN) HAVE CHOICES PRIOR TO CONCEPTION AND I BELIEVE THAT THE FETUS IS A DEVELOPING HUMAN AND DESERVES THE RIGHT TO LIFE.

Why don't you answer any of the questions I have asked?

Because the woman doesn't always get to choose. Because the legal system works slowly and may or may not accurately prove a choice or lack thereof within 9 months. Because birth control doesn't always work. Because other people are in situations that you are not in a position to understand.

If you don't want people to have abortions, work to improve the availability of birth control. Work to provide options and support for women who are pregnant. Work to improve education about how babies are made. Leave women their choice, but work to let them see that the choice you want them to make is a viable one.

[Butters 0]

You didn't answer any of my questions. (I already stated that there should be exceptions such as rape, health of the mother, etc... that allow for abortion.)

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Just because something is legal doesn't make it the best or healthiest option. I think most of us agree that abortion is not usually a positive thing. It's a surgical procedure that is not without risk.

Pro-choice just means that we're not going to decide for someone else. It doesn't mean that we want people to have abortions. It just means we want the alternative to be there if people feel they need it.

I'm pro-choice, but I'd love to see a world with no abortion. That does not, however, mean I want a world with no choice. I want to see people educated about birth control so the issue of abortion won't even come up. I want to prevent abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies to begin with. I don't want to see people go through the anguish of deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. The fewer people who need to consider abortion, the better.

What's to anguish over when deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy? Just the standard concerns (cost, risk, etc.) that you'd have over any medical procedure or something else? If it's just the standard concerns, what's the point of even mentioning that?

I'd like to see all hospitals go away. Not because I want people to die if they get sick but because I'd rather see people not get sick (ok, some hospitals can stay for people who want elective medical procedures). So?

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Nightingale 0]

Because unlike other surgeries, abortion does terminate a potential person.

Also, you didn't address any of my concerns with providing only rape and health exceptions.

[Butters 0]

I think they have answered your question. They morally object to abortions but not to the extent that they are willing to force their morals on others. What is wrong with that?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>How about domestic abuse? None of your business?

If it's a man slapping his wife around (or vice versa) then it is.

Why is it your business?

Is it based on a societal construct that says we should defend those who can't defend themselves?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Quote

>How about domestic abuse? None of your business?

If it's a man slapping his wife around (or vice versa) then it is.

Why is it your business?

Is it based on a societal construct that says we should defend those who can't defend themselves?

To me it's not so much about trying to defend the undefendable (or maybe it is). I just wish more men would stand up to other men and tell them that it is unacceptable behavior for men to be either verbally or physically abusing their female spouses. But this is for another thread and not directly related to the abortion debate.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Smoking is legal; it is also undoubtedly bad for you. If you had a friend with asthma and a family history of lung cancer, would you try to talk him out of smoking? Why would you do that, if it's legal? Answer that question and you may have your answer to MY question.

Quote

I think they have answered your question. They morally object to abortions but not to the extent that they are willing to force their morals on others. What is wrong with that?

I think it has been answered with these two replies. It's a situation where it's not liked, just not enough to make it illegal. It just seemed a bit odd to be in favor of allowing something but only at a minimal level. I wanted to explore why.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I still don't have a handle on why someone who's pro-choice would make comments along the lines of minimizing the number of abortions.

One of several reasons:

Most things in life that can (and might have intended to be) used for human benefit can also be used in an opposite (undesired by most) way.

Pro-choice does mean one must accept the other, less desirable scenarios will also likely be performed. Is that what you want admitted? OK. I don't see how that means a pro-choicer should not logically have a desire to prevent abortion.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[wmw999 2,534]

It boils down to whether a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus are a person, and what the difference is between a person and a potential person, and a collection of cells. And when they go from one stage to another.

Because while it's not my business if someone wants to use an IUD (which in one sense is an abortion since one of its functions is to prevent implantation of the egg), it's kind of appalling to consider that someone might think that 9 months minus one day is OK.

So where is the cutoff? "quickening" (when you began to feel kicks) was the traditional definition; about 16 weeks in most cases. By traditional I mean back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Abortion is not a new topic.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PLFXpert 0]

Nicely put.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Because unlike other surgeries, abortion does terminate a potential person.

During the very early stages of pregnancy, I agree that it's hard to think of it as a human being, however, during the late stages of pregnancy, it's not just a potential person, it *is* a person.

Quote

Also, you didn't address any of my concerns with providing only rape and health exceptions.

I'll try to address when I find them.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

During the very early stages of pregnancy, I agree that it's hard to think of it as a human being, however, during the late stages of pregnancy, it's not just a potential person, it *is* a person.

Correct me if I am wrong people, but abortions (not counting medical issues where the mother's life is at risk) are NOT performed at the late stages of a pregnancy.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong people, but abortions (not counting medical issues where the mother's life is at risk) are NOT performed at the late stages of a pregnancy

They are really rare and almost never done.. yet that is what gets all the air time and pictures of torn apart babies in the Pro-Life mind set.. you hear far more about partial birth abortions.. yet they are the rarest of them.... nasty pictures make for better press ya know.
Yes they are abhorent and should not be done.. a c section birth would be preferable if that is what it takes for the mother to survive.

[billvon 3,070]

>Is it based on a societal construct that says we should defend
>those who can't defend themselves?

Yes and no.

We do have a society that places value on protecting the innocent against unasked-for violence; many of our laws are there expressly for that purpose.

However, if that was true universally, then the woman slapping the five year old would be just as much a criminal as the man slapping the (adult) woman. We have a concept here in the US that adults are entitled to all the rights called out by our constitution and our justice department, but children do not have as many rights. They cannot vote, cannot buy alcohol, do not have freedom of association etc. The younger they are, the more rights they are denied, and the more power their parents have over them. Before conception it is quite literally the power of life and death; that power extends through conception, through pregnancy and until birth. After that, parents no longer have the power of life and death, but still hold 90% of the rights of that child. They can strike the child if needed for disciplinary purposes, imprison him/her indefinitely without trial, force him/her to take drugs, undergo humiliating medical examinations or eat certain foods they may find repugnant etc.

As the child gets older, they acquire more rights, until at age 21 (at least here) they are considered fully adult.

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong people, but abortions (not counting medical issues where the mother's life is at risk) are NOT performed at the late stages of a pregnancy.

shhhhhhhhh
It's a secret.

Actually, occasionally some are. They're irresponsible, and should probably be treated as the exception, rather than the rule.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I'll try to address when I find them.

--Head

Here you go:

"The problem with [allowing an exception to an abortion ban on the basis of rape] is that it encourages women to falsely report rape. They either have to:

1. allow any woman who says "rape" to have an abortion

2. allow any woman with a substantiated claim to have an abortion (investigations take time...), or

3. only allow abortion after a conviction (very impractical).

The logistics of that just don't work out. If you go with 1, the woman gets her abortion and a man (possibly innocent) gets investigated for rape. This encourages women who want abortions to file false police reports. Sure, they may get investigated and charged for this, but they got their abortion. If you go with 2, the woman may have actually been raped and the evidence just isn't there (sometimes it really isn't), and if you go with 3, well, investigations and trials can take a long time. Sometimes much longer than 9 months."

[PLFXpert 0]

So, while we await further research on Dr. Lanza's principle, where do we all stand on abortion and embryonic stem cell research?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

shhhhhhhhh
It's a secret.

Thanks for the clarification Wendy.

When I was issued my "Mars" users manual, it came in a really small binder and it fact it was just one page long with little more than one paragraph worth of contents. I was never issued the "Venus" encyclopedia so there are tons of things I don't know about you ladies.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[PLFXpert 0]

I've been saying just this all along: If one can think of any reason in any circumstance they would support an abortion, one must not consider themselves "pro-life".

"Have one's cake & eat it, too!" Wouldn't that be great?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Still waiting for some other pro-lifer besides Butters to tell me exactly why you are so against abortion. I have my theories ... but to avoid the stereotypes I won't mention it right now.

I have several arguments and I may not be able to put them together in an orderly fashion, but I'll give it a try.

First, if we will not protect the most innocent amongst us, what does that say about the moral degradation of our society.

We have watched the downhill slide in many areas, but the abortion proponents, commonly known as pro-choice, have taken it to the max.

Originally, they burned them alive in the womb with a saline solution and had to abort them in the first trimester.
Then, they simply ripped them apart and removed them piece by piece.
Now, they can wait until seconds before the child takes its first breath, turn it around, deliver it feet first, stab it in the back of the head and suck its brains out?

My main argument here is that if the child is viable, either on its own, or through the use of medical technology, at the time the decision for abortion is made, why does the child have to die? At this point, it is usually about destoying the life of the child, which says a lot about the woman in question.

I guess the women's lib movement has proven that no one can tell them what to do with their own lives or bodies.

How can those who so fervently embrace the individual rights of the woman to do as she pleases, turn around and embrace the " It takes a village to raise a child" mentality?

If one person has the power of life and death over a child, just because it's in the womb, why shouldn't another person have that same right in raising a child as they see fit?
We have govt. intervention because someone left their 8 yr, old child home alone while they worked or took care of some business.

We have no problem with allowing the woman the right to choose whether the child lives or dies, but we are aghast if we see a pregnant woman smoking, drinking, taking any number of recreational drugs, or engaging in some other risky behavior that might damage or endanger the potential child.

The irony and the hypocracy is that it is generally the same group of people who are pushing both agendas.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

If one can think of any reason in any circumstance they would support an abortion, one must not consider themselves "pro-life".

But yet we find so many who proclaim to the world they are PRO LIFE

Yet support wars of agreesion and nation building
Last time I checked war kills PLENTY of innocents

And want retribution with the death penalty for a whole litany of crimes

and some of those who are innocent have been so punished.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

First, if we will not protect the most innocent amongst us, what does that say about the moral degradation of our society.

I very much want to protect unadopted children that live their lives "in the system", foster homes, then at 18 get to leave with a garbage bag of their belongings and little preparation to make a life for themselves (both metaphorically and literally).

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Royd 0]

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First, if we will not protect the most innocent amongst us, what does that say about the moral degradation of our society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

I very much want to protect unadopted children that live their lives "in the system", foster homes, then at 18 get to leave with a garbage bag of their belongings and little preparation to make a life for themselves (both metaphorically and literally).

You know very well, that I am referring to the unborn child.back at you