Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?

So you're a fetus and you get aborted...wango tango! Straight to Jesus with no in between stuck on earth with the heathens suffering.

Not a bad deal maybe.

0 Replies

p.s. to tony: i agreed with a lot of what you said, like when the right to an abortion ends, once the baby can survive outside the mother... sorry if you felt i quoted you too much out of context, i was just interested in that question of when a "seed becomes a person".

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

tony2481 wrote:
US laws are not instilled by "morality" per se, although they may be rooted in the concept of right and wrong. The laws that exist, exist because the people want them (by referendum or by elected representatives).

Nice double-speak you've got going there!

"The laws that exist, exist because the people want them". Yep. And why do they want them?? For most people the answer is because the laws are what they see as "just" or "fair" - both of which are determined by one's moral values. Which takes you right back to legislating morality.

Well I guess we should get rid of all standards of right and wrong and have no laws.

What I really think you are getting at, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you think you should be the standard of right and wrong. You know that you can buy an island and be the dictator of your own domain. Until then, you will have to accept that you are not the only person with an opinion.

0 Replies

dora17 wrote:

p.s. to tony: i agreed with a lot of what you said, like when the right to an abortion ends, once the baby can survive outside the mother... sorry if you felt i quoted you too much out of context, i was just interested in that question of when a "seed becomes a person".

When it joins with the egg

0 Replies

Dora, no offense taken. I know I am often suprised with who I agree with and I am sure you are as well

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

dora17 wrote:
p.s. to tony: i agreed with a lot of what you said, like when the right to an abortion ends, once the baby can survive outside the mother... sorry if you felt i quoted you too much out of context, i was just interested in that question of when a "seed becomes a person".

When it joins with the egg

That's a good answer.

Certainly better than any Dora has put forth. She seems to think a baby -- err "parasite" -- only becomes a person upon emergence from the birth canal.

0 Replies

Some basics

very few "late term abortions" are performed.

an egg and a sperm may unite but unless the combination is implanted in a womb, it will not develop.

0 Replies

If a couple can not get along well together, they should not bring a child into the world.

And, yes, noddy, there should be more birth control and fewer abortions.

What puzzles is me is why anyone would think that any branch of government should have anything to say about whether or not an abortion should be performed. An abortion is an individual act and has no bearing upon society at large.

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

....

What puzzles is me is why anyone would think that any branch of government should have anything to say about whether or not an abortion should be performed. An abortion is an individual act and has no bearing upon society at large.

You could say the same thing about a mother who kills her newborn child and puts the body in the trash dumpster. That the government sees that as more than an "individual act" not deserving of its attention, should cause you to rethink your thesis.

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

Some basics

very few "late term abortions" are performed.

an egg and a sperm may unite but unless the combination is implanted in a womb, it will not develop.

And where else, may I ask, would they unite? Shocked

'cept in a petrie dish or test tube perhaps Confused

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

And, yes, noddy, there should be more birth control and fewer abortions.

This is the aspect of the anti-abortion camp that I've never understood. They limit the education that kids receive about preventing pregnancy and STDs, then get all uptight when someone decides to get an abortion.

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

fishin' wrote:
tony2481 wrote:
US laws are not instilled by "morality" per se, although they may be rooted in the concept of right and wrong. The laws that exist, exist because the people want them (by referendum or by elected representatives).

Nice double-speak you've got going there!

"The laws that exist, exist because the people want them". Yep. And why do they want them?? For most people the answer is because the laws are what they see as "just" or "fair" - both of which are determined by one's moral values. Which takes you right back to legislating morality.

Well I guess we should get rid of all standards of right and wrong and have no laws.

What I really think you are getting at, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you think you should be the standard of right and wrong. You know that you can buy an island and be the dictator of your own domain. Until then, you will have to accept that you are not the only person with an opinion.

I don't know how you ever managed to come up with this contrived idea of what you think I'm getting at but you are so far off base it becomes laughable.

The point, very simply is that what is "right" and "wrong" ARE moral values and since the overwhelming majority of laws exist to encourage "right" behavior or discourage "wrong" behavior those laws are based on the morality of the society that created the laws. The sole reason for creating most laws to to establish a standard for all when there is a conflict of morals. All of which refutes the notion that "you can't legislate morality".

0 Replies

Fishin'

At what point should there be a law against anything? Should there be no laws whatsoever? What is your point anyway? Do you agree with me and just want to argue my choice of words?

My statement must have lacked clarity. I am saying your town should not be ruled by your morals. If your town decides it is in agreement with you, you may be satisfied, but you didn't impose your morals on the townspeople. They agreed on the rules you were in favor of.

0 Replies

Quote:

Atkins
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:30 am Post subject:

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

If a couple can not get along well together, they should not bring a child into the world.

And, yes, noddy, there should be more birth control and fewer abortions.

What puzzles is me is why anyone would think that any branch of government should have anything to say about whether or not an abortion should be performed. An abortion is an individual act and has no bearing upon society at large.

1. If a couple cannot get along, they should not get pregnant. Say they stop getting along when the child is 10 (I hate to beat this dead horse) do you terminate it? Are children raised by one parent somehow inferior to those raised by 2 parents?

2. Abstinence is the best form of birth control. It should be taught as so. I am not saying ignore the other (though less effective) forms of birth control, but lets not concede that all young people are "just going to do it anyways."

3. You are puzzled because you are narrow minded. People disagree with you. Those people feel that someone should look out for the innocent, and they feel the unborn child is a person. The government is the means to compel the protection. To say that an abortion has no effect on society is easy to say. You are a cold, barely human person if you don't feel any grief for Jessica Lundsford and her family. I doubt her death had any bearing on your life.

0 Replies

Quote:

2. Abstinence is the best form of birth control. It should be taught as so. I am not saying ignore the other (though less effective) forms of birth control, but lets not concede that all young people are "just going to do it anyways."

Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction.

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction

I would love to see that study. Please post a link if it is available.

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

Quote:
Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction

I would love to see that study. Please post a link if it is available.

I second that emotion.

0 Replies

Quote:

2. Abstinence is the best form of birth control. It should be taught as so. I am not saying ignore the other (though less effective) forms of birth control, but lets not concede that all young people are "just going to do it anyways."

Why not approach the teaching of birth control from a proper educational perspective and not from a doctrinal approach?

Teach them all the ways of birth control, including abstinence.

And teach them in context.

This is an interesting article

Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned

0 Replies

Do pro-lifers go to antiwar protests?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

tony2481 wrote:
Quote:
Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction

I would love to see that study. Please post a link if it is available.

I second that emotion.

Are you implying that the information is false?

0 Replies

Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know