ABORTION.......

Questioner,

No, I never in my wildest dreams would picture you, or anyone else for that matter, sneering gleefully.

I understand about you would change your mind if it could be proven by science to be unequivocably alive. I guess the part I don't understand is why then would you not side with the child just because it might be a possibility? It's hard to reconcile in my mind why a woman's right to choose would be more important than saving a baby's life.

I can't speak for anyone else on here, but I didn't look at Rex's (I think, can't see his post as I'm in the quick reply box) efforts to get you and others to look at those pictures to try to make you feel guilty. I don't know his motives, true, but to me, it is if it is on film, in black and white, then it's the truth, not a weapon.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Why should any of this matter if abortion is just another medical procedure and has no moral component?

If I have cancer surgery ( and more than one pro-abort on this thread has tried comparing the unborn to a cancer ) and my surgeon throws the discarded tumor in a dumpster, am I gonna be queasy about you finding it there? Not a chance. I'm gonna say "Yep it's in the trash and that's where it belongs. Good riddance."

If my surgeon removes a mole or some extra skin during plastic surgery, am I gonna be embarrassed or get a guilt trip if you go find the skin? (More than one pro-abort has compared the unborn to 'a blob of tissue' ) Hardly. I could care less. Frame it and hang it on the wall, or burn it in your fireplace. It makes me no difference.

The simple reality is that many pro-abortion folks cannot get away from their own conscience, which tells them that they are denying the obvious.

Of course we can't. Because unlike the picture that you and non-denom paint of us, we're not murderous bastards with god-foresaken souls. I worry every bit as much as you pro-lifers do about the killing of an innocent human. The honus has been on YOU to provide the evidence that we're not remove the rights of the woman by removing her choice.

Are we making the wrong choice? It very well could be.

But what kind of country would this be if every hiccup and burp and excuse and "I just don't feel it's correct" that came up caused a massive national clampdown on our fundamental liberties? If the fetus is alive, then it should be protected and by all the gods it should be born and raised by caring parents.

Work on getting that proved. Work on getting the living status of a developing fetus established and this WILL go away.

The arguments I've presented were, to be honest, mostly me playing devils advocate. However the majority of the replies I got back were every bit as laughable and hamstrung as my comparing a fetus to a cancer.

I don't go to sleep at night on a pillow made of tiny human skulls and dream of garbage cans full of tiny bodies. But you have a motive, and you have a desire, and so you paint me as a blood-sucking baby killer.
I've established my position, and very little if anything at all that anyone on this thread, you included, have said has persuaded me that it's not a correct one to take.

I've said that with the proper proof my stance will change. Images of fetus's behind a dumpster, though galling and truly sad, does not change it. I don't particularly enjoy taking this position, but I feel rather pressed to do so.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

No, I never in my wildest dreams would picture you, or anyone else for that matter, sneering gleefully.

I understand about you would change your mind if it could be proven by science to be unequivocably alive. I guess the part I don't understand is why then would you not side with the child just because it might be a possibility? It's hard to reconcile in my mind why a woman's right to choose would be more important than saving a baby's life.

Because, as you've said, it's a possibility. The same reason the courts didn't remove the woman's rights. There's not enough evidence to demand a reversal. Simple as that. In this country, you can't take away someone's rights, no matter how hiddeous the results may be, based solely on a possibility. It's as simple as that.

0 Replies

Questioner,

Thank you. I really appreciate you answering so honestly. You help me to understand things.

0 Replies

The method of disposal is now a moot point? It wasn't moot when Mamma said that one fetus in a dumpster was enough to turn pro-choicers around. It wasn't moot when the link to go look at fetuses in a dumpster was posted. Why the hell is it moot now? Well Mamma, I know in my soul, as strongly as you know in yours that there is a God, that abortions will not cease if they are made illegal. I wish abortions didn't occur. You can't find a post of mine on this, or any other, forum that takes a pro-abortion stance. As much as I wish abortions didn't occur, I'm realistic enough to know that they do and that they will continue to occur regardless of the legality. Do you honestly think that overturning Roe vs Wade will stop abortions from occuring? They won't stop and it's naive to think they will.

0 Replies

J_B,

I never for a second thought that abortions would totally cease if they became illegal and the laws were strictly enforced. I do believe; however, that fewer abortions would be performed. I am not naive about this, J_B, far from it.

I just don't like the let's make it/keep it legal so there won't be as many back alley ones.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

But, if even one of these pictures are the truth, is pro-choice really worth the cost?

Then why did you say this? You never answered my question. What exactly do you think will happen to the aborted fetuses if abortion becomes illegal?

Here is an example of one statute I found related to disposal of fetuses.

Quote:

8.16.040 Disposal of Fetal Remains.
Any physician who performs or induces an abortion shall dispose of the remains of the aborted fetus in a humane and sanitary manner, and shall provide for such cremation, burial or other disposition as shall be directed by the pregnant woman. (Ord. 55-78 1.01).

If you're willing to jump onto someone's post about disposal methods being sufficient to change everyone's minds about abortion then I think you should answer my question.

0 Replies

This entire debate is not unlike the tradtional "horns of dilemma" debates that go on in every 1st year philosophy course. In simple terms using the metaphor of the run-a-way train and you are the engineer, ahead the rails split into A or B and on track A is your son while on track B is 100 unknown strangers. You have to select a rail, either A or B knowing that those on the rail you chose will die. which do you chose?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

J_B,

That is the poorest excuse (IMO) for making abortions legal. It's kind of like making heroin legal so all the drug addicts can have access to clean needles from clinics or making prostitution legal so sexually transmitted diseases won't be as prevalent. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash with me. There is never a good reason to try make a wrong a right.

Funny you should say that ....

In my country we have legal heroin injecting rooms and legal prostitution...both measures are designed to save lives...but if it's more important that people live by your morals then maybe we should stop...death should stop them sinning at least ?

0 Replies

"Right2Life" is the one basic rightwing idea I wish I'd never heard of.

It seems obvious to me that 90 - 95% of abortions in America are unnecessary and probably should not be happening, and that we have an abortion industry in the country whose interests are, to say the least, not compatible with the idea of the nation succeeding in life.

Nonetheless there are at least three overriding concerns which force me to believe that the right needs to re-examine its basic position on the issue. Not that republicans need to start favoring abortions, but that the quest for draconian laws needs to be abandoned, and the time, effort, and money put into persuasion rather than attempts at coercion.

One of the three concerns I have is that the other 5% of abortions include cases so compelling that a draconian law would be totally out of place dealing with them. Aside from cases of rape and incest and the like, there are cases like that of my brother's friend. He and his wife had one child die of cyctic fibrosis at age six and then tests showed a second pregnancy would produce another child with CF. They opted for abortion in that case and finally a third pregnancy produced a normal child who is now nine years old and leading a normal life. A draconian law would accomplish nothing but evil in such cases.

My second concern is that draconian laws in general have a bad history. They include prohibition, the failed "war on drugs", the 55 mph speed limit on highways which was finally shown to put lives in danger, the insane "zero tolerance" laws in schools and all the grief they cause, school bussing laws, and any number of others. To my knowledge, nothing good has ever come of any such law.

The third and most major concern I have is the democrat party. One of our two parties has gone totally rogue in recent years to so great an extent that having them win another presidential election would be, at this point, a non-recoverable disaster. In my estimation the nation has been on the edge of civil war for the last decade. You couldn't just hand the country over to them even if they won an election; that would be just like handing the keys to the assylum straight over to the lunatics. The best we could have done had Kerry won that last election would have been to split the country up.

The abortion issue is the ONLY meaningful issue which dems come anywhere remotely close to being on the right side of. Only that one issue has kept the democrat party alive for the last 30 years. Their NEA and inner city and envirowhack constituencies are not enough to keep a major political party rolling. Women, on the other hand, are 51% of all voters, everywhere on earth. For a political party to be saying anything like "Hey, we want to pass some sort of a law depriving 51% of the voters of legal control over their own bodies" would give the opposition a chance even if the opposition was the biggest bunch of losers on earth.

Like I say, none of this means that I see abortion as a good idea or that there's any reason why the vast bulk of abortions ought to be happening; just that the quest for draconian laws should be abandoned.

0 Replies

Quote:

Momma Angel wrote:
But, if even one of these pictures are the truth, is pro-choice really worth the cost?

J_B Wrote:

Quote:

Then why did you say this? You never answered my question. What exactly do you think will happen to the aborted fetuses if abortion becomes illegal?

I am not sure by what you mean when you say, "Then why did you say this?" I said that because I meant that. If a single one of those pictures represents the truth, that is more than enough proof for me that it is indeed a child and not just a fetus. If abortion becomes illegal I imagine it will be pretty horrific to even think about what might happen to the babies.

J_B Wrote:

Quote:

Here is an example of one statute I found related to disposal of fetuses.

Quote:
8.16.040 Disposal of Fetal Remains.
Any physician who performs or induces an abortion shall dispose of the remains of the aborted fetus in a humane and sanitary manner, and shall provide for such cremation, burial or other disposition as shall be directed by the pregnant woman. (Ord. 55-78 1.01).

If you're willing to jump onto someone's post about disposal methods being sufficient to change everyone's minds about abortion then I think you should answer my question.

If the Disposal of Fetal Remains as quoted above was strictly adhered to, at least it's better than throwing them in a dumpster.

And J_B, I feel like you are kind of putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I thought it would be sufficient evidence to change everyone's mind about abortion. I said, "If just one of those pictures was the truth, is it worth the cost?" That is how I feel about it. Doesn't mean you or anyone has to or does. I personally do not feel it is worth the cost. I don't believe in abortion. I believe it is a child. If I believed it was a fetus and not a child I am sure I would have a different view. And if you believed it was a child and not a fetus, wouldn't you have a different view?

0 Replies

Personally I would be satisfied at this point if Roe v Wade was revised so that judges would HAVE to interpret it as it was originally intended. The original intent is that the state would have little or no interest in the baby in the first tri-mester. Practically speaking then, that would allow up to three months that abortion on demand would be legal. Then Roe v Wade cites increased governmental interest in the second trimester and a great deal of governmental interest in the third trimester. In other words a compelling reason would have to be given for aborting a child in mid term and only a life threatening condition would justify a late term abortion.

This would save some. And with at least a modicum of sanctity of life returned to the American psyche, then maybe the pendulum would swing back to the time that women rarely conceived a child they were unable to love, even if the pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted.

0 Replies

Eorl Wrote:

Quote:

Momma Angel wrote:

J_B,

That is the poorest excuse (IMO) for making abortions legal. It's kind of like making heroin legal so all the drug addicts can have access to clean needles from clinics or making prostitution legal so sexually transmitted diseases won't be as prevalent. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash with me. There is never a good reason to try make a wrong a right.

Eorl Wrote:

Quote:

Funny you should say that ....

In my country we have legal heroin injecting rooms and legal prostitution...both measures are designed to save lives...but if it's more important that people live by your morals then maybe we should stop...death should stop them sinning at least ?

First, what is your country? I didn't realize you weren't from the US. Yes, this would possibly save lives, but what good is saving your life if you lose your soul in the process?

0 Replies

Momma, Australia. Smile

I highly doubt the existence of any soul. I think life is a wonderful beautiful thing ...but this is it I expect. (but let's argue that one elsewhere)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Momma, Australia.

I highly doubt the existence of any soul. I think life is a wonderful beautiful thing ...but this is it I expect. (but let's argue that one elsewhere)

Eorl,

Australia! Oh wow! A place I would love to visit someday!

But as for your last comment a thought comes to mind. If, as you tend to believe, there is no existence of any soul and this is it, wouldn't that make life itself all the more precious?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Personally I would be satisfied at this point if Roe v Wade was revised so that judges would HAVE to interpret it as it was originally intended. The original intent is that the state would have little or no interest in the baby in the first tri-mester. Practically speaking then, that would allow up to three months that abortion on demand would be legal. Then Roe v Wade cites increased governmental interest in the second trimester and a great deal of governmental interest in the third trimester. In other words a compelling reason would have to be given for aborting a child in mid term and only a life threatening condition would justify a late term abortion.

This would save some. And with at least a modicum of sanctity of life returned to the American psyche, then maybe the pendulum would swing back to the time that women rarely conceived a child they were unable to love, even if the pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted.

I totally agree, Fox.

And MA, I find myself so intensely angry at your posts tonight I am unable to respond without violating the TOS, so I'm not going to respond other than to say my children were children from the moment they were conceived so don't you dare presume to think you know my views.

0 Replies

J_B,

I went back and read my posts for today because I was so shocked that you were angry at my posts. I honestly had no idea why.

If you are referring to my if it were a fetus to me then I would probably have a different view and if it were a child to you then you would probably have a different view, I did not mean that you as in you personally. I meant that depending upon how someone viewed the fetus/child we would probably have different views.

I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way, J_B. I try so hard not to do that to anyone. Sometimes I think, the harder I try not to do it, the more I do it. Please accept my apology.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Momma, Australia.

I highly doubt the existence of any soul. I think life is a wonderful beautiful thing ...but this is it I expect. (but let's argue that one elsewhere)

Eorl,

Australia! Oh wow! A place I would love to visit someday!

But as for your last comment a thought comes to mind. If, as you tend to believe, there is no existence of any soul and this is it, wouldn't that make life itself all the more precious?

Yes absolutely.

Which is why the death of a 14 year old girl in a backyard clinic is such a tragedy to me.

Potential lives are important too but (as we've already established)...not as important to me as people are. I think I'm the one who cares about people and the prolifers are the ones who put lives at risk. I've been saying ad nauseum...EVERYthing depends on that definition of what constitutes a human being.

0 Replies

Eorl,

And I would imagine that it's getting pretty tiring for you to hear that I can't understand why you wouldn't err on the side of caution. But, guess we just have to agree to disagree.

0 Replies

Yes Momma I think so. Theists and atheists must expect to have massive problems understanding each other.

If it was me that was pregnant I would err on the side of caution...it's forcing others to do so at the risk of pushing abortions "underground" that I can't condone.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know