views on abortion and euthanasia

real life wrote:

What compelling interest does the state have in limiting the woman to a set amount of time?

The interest of the state is not being addressed in the idea of setting a time parameter. The interest of the state is to allow abortions in general because of what kind of resources would go to supporting a child via other means (such as adoption).

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
What compelling interest does the state have in limiting the woman to a set amount of time?

The interest of the state is not being addressed in the idea of setting a time parameter. The interest of the state is to allow abortions in general because of what kind of resources would go to supporting a child via other means (such as adoption).

T
K
O

If the state is restricting an individual's 'right' to something, then the state must show that there is a compelling reason for doing so.

What is the state's compelling interest that allows it to restrict or prohibit abortion after 12 weeks?

0 Replies

RL - I'm not sure what you want me to expand on. Your question comes under false premise. The rationalization of a state regulating a practice is far separated from the rationalization of a state to allow or forbid the practice in full.

In short, the state sin't representing its on interest in the regulation, it is instad acting as a median for the interest of the woman and of the unborn. The interests of the state are already met by avoiding the extreme ends of either of the other interests.

T
K
O

0 Replies

And EXACTLY when did the unborn gain 'interests' or rights that must be considered?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

And EXACTLY when did the unborn gain 'interests' or rights that must be considered?

RL - Make your point already. Otherwise, I've stated mine very clearly.

What is your idea of the best way to balance the interests of all three?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Many pro-aborts would say that the unborn has no 'interests' to be balanced with anything else.

Why do you say that the unborn has 'interests' that the state must consider and take into account?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Many pro-aborts would say that the unborn has no 'interests' to be balanced with anything else.

Why do you say that the unborn has 'interests' that the state must consider and take into account?

I'm just approaching this with the concideration that some do belive that the unborn does. It's not nessisarily my belief, but I don't object to tayloring law to recognize that the unborn may have interests.

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I think you're well aware that I favor reversing Roe v Wade.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I think you're well aware that I favor reversing Roe v Wade.

Then am I to understand that you don't care to balance the interests of the unborn, mother and state?

T
K
O

0 Replies

The state has a responsibility to protect life.

We don't balance the life of one person against the convenience of another and decide that it's ok to kill them sometimes.

0 Replies

If your answer doesn't represent in some way the interests of the state, the woman and the unborn being balanced, I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously.

T
K
O

0 Replies

There seems to be a lot you don't see.

Why should one person forfeit their life for the convenience of another?

And why should the state approve it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Why should one person forfeit their life for the convenience of another?

"Convenience" is the word used comfortably from a distance. A unplanned pregnancy can be MORE than an inconvieniance.

Tell me why you think that the same number of abortions are done for individuals with no children as individuals with 4+ children?

Ever think that possibly there is a limit as to how much an individual can provide?

real life wrote:

And why should the state approve it?

Because (as it has been explained to you numerous times) the state does not bennefit from having to accomodate for a dramatic raise in populaiton.

Childcare programs - They have to go somewhere don't they?
Building schools - They have to learn don't they?
Orphanages - If they aren't wanted, they still have to have a roof over their head.
Housing - The state doesn't bennefit from having individuals whose housing needs exceed their housing budget.

etc.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Why should one person forfeit their life for the convenience of another?

"Convenience" is the word used comfortably from a distance. A unplanned pregnancy can be MORE than an inconvieniance.

Tell me why you think that the same number of abortions are done for individuals with no children as individuals with 4+ children?

Ever think that possibly there is a limit as to how much an individual can provide?

You act as if the only options were 18 years of parenthood or abortion.

Why do you continually bring up 'well it's very expensive to raise a child' as a rationale for abortion? ( and yes, it's a convenience rationale)

Have you never heard of adoption?

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
And why should the state approve it?

Because (as it has been explained to you numerous times) the state does not bennefit from having to accomodate for a dramatic raise in populaiton.

Childcare programs - They have to go somewhere don't they?
Building schools - They have to learn don't they?
Orphanages - If they aren't wanted, they still have to have a roof over their head.
Housing - The state doesn't bennefit from having individuals whose housing needs exceed their housing budget.

etc.

T
K
O

And as we have discussed, when abortion was illegal in the US , the incidence of unplanned pregnancy was dramatically lower.

Is Denmark, (your shining example of a low abortion rate) suffering a huge increase in population that strains the national budget, as they restrict the availability of abortion? No, they are not.

0 Replies

First off, I'm not forgetting adoption, you quoted one of my posts with adoption as a part of it. Adoption is great, but it requires people to do the adopting. That's a resource harder to come by than money.

Secondly, I hold Denmark up as one of many examples of how a nation can offer abortion as an alternative and yet have the economic stability to enable it's citizens to chose to keep their uborn.

Lastly, as for the number of unplanned pregnancies prior to Roe v Wade, I hold any number suspect that requires a woman or a couple to disclose information of this nature. I'd love to see your numbers, and I'd love to see the numbers of the marriages of individuals between the ages of 16 - 21 then and now.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

First off, I'm not forgetting adoption, you quoted one of my posts with adoption as a part of it. Adoption is great, but it requires people to do the adopting. That's a resource harder to come by than money.

Secondly, I hold Denmark up as one of many examples of how a nation can offer abortion as an alternative and yet have the economic stability to enable it's citizens to chose to keep their uborn.

Lastly, as for the number of unplanned pregnancies prior to Roe v Wade, I hold any number suspect that requires a woman or a couple to disclose information of this nature. I'd love to see your numbers, and I'd love to see the numbers of the marriages of individuals between the ages of 16 - 21 then and now.

T
K
O

It was your assertion, can you not support it? You implied that orphanages would be inundated with unwanted children if abortion were illegal.

Show where that occurred in the US prior to Roe v Wade.

0 Replies

What about my assertions needs to be validated? That if abortion is made illegal, america will have more orphans? I'm not going to waste my time proving the obvious.

If aboriton was made illegal, and all births came to term, how many of the births do you think would end up being orphans? Even if you were (miraculously) able to keep the percentages the same, the net increase in the orphanages would be several fold.

T
K
O

0 Replies

TKO - i can see your point in terms of why the state would legalise abortion to avoid certain financial or spacial inconveniences on their part, but i hope that you don't hold those as your personal views. a child, no matter what circumstances it is brought into, deserves a chance of life.

a personal example comes from a man, Jon Glover, who attended the church i used to got to.

a few weeks after his birth, his parents abandoned him, basically left him for dead.

40 years later, he isn't the nicest guy you'll ever meet, very selfish, and quite hypocritical as a christian, but he does earn over 60,000 a year, is a faithful husband, and has 5 children.

if the state could have seen his life after his first few weeks, should he have been aborted?

should the millions of other potential Jon Glovers be aborted?

0 Replies

Hello Rockpie, you are confusing my point. I am absolutely against the notion of the statemandating an abortion. So my answer is no.

My basic point is that whatever the legal stance is of a country it is going to have to reflect the intrests of the unborn, the woman, and the state.

Having abortion being outright illegal is a gross inbalance IMO. I am all for having fewer abortions happen, but I believe that this goal is achieved though other social means, not the hand of law.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I am absolutely against the notion of the state mandating an abortion. So my answer is no.

Why?

Whose rights would it violate?

(Caution: This is a trick question.)

0 Replies

views on abortion and euthanasia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know