ABORTION.......

OMG! Frank! Shocked

Is it really you? Shocked

How are you? How have you been? I know you might not believe this, but I am so happy to see you!

There has been a passion missing from A2K. You are that passion. We may not agree on much, and actually, I am looking forward to more conversations with you because of that passion!

0 Replies

I'm doing just fine, MA...hope you are also.

I see this thread...and a couple of others like it are still going.

If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to do so as safely as possible. People who guess there is a god that might be offended by that should really pick out a different god...because any god that would be offended by something like that is not much of a god.

Hope that contained enough passion for you, MA.

0 Replies

Frank,

Oh yes! You ARE definitely back! And yes, I am doing pretty well myself.

You might be surprised at how a few of my views have been adjusted while you were gone BTW. :wink:

But, I still don't believe in abortions for convenience sake. I still believe if it's inconvenient for someone then they should make danged sure they do't get pregnant in the first place. The ultimate responsibility still rests with the woman.

0 Replies

The ultimate DECISIONS still rest with the woman.

0 Replies

Not denying that the decision rests with the woman at all. I just think she should not put herself in a situation where she would have to make THIS decision.

I do agree there are cases where the woman has no control over this, i.e., rape, etc., and those abortions I can understand. Not like or agree with, but understand.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The ultimate DECISIONS still rest with the woman.

Hey Frank!

Nice to see you!

Anon

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I agree with Real Life that contraceptives are fine, though I struggle with the ethics of say the 'morning after' pills that in effect trigger a very early abortion of a fertilized egg. I have always maintained that a viable baby prior to birth is as much a person as is a baby immediately after birth. Then could the same reasoning be that if an individual sperm and egg is not a person and it is not unethical to dispose of them, then technically is it wrong to dispose of them at the incidental moment of their meeting? I am still pondering this issue as I am the ethics of disposing of unused fertilized eggs in in vitro fertilization. I do not have a firm opinion on either of these things but lean toward the side that disposing of them is okay.

Once a baby has formed and is on the way, however, I have no problem of seeing that baby as a new person on the way..........

Hi Foxfyre,

Once the egg and sperm unite, there really is no line of demarcation that divides 'a baby formed and on the way' with one that is not a living human being.

There are millions of small steps which add up to the changes in the growth and development of the unborn.

At whatever point in the nine months one might decide to try to draw a line to define the unborn as a living human being, the natural question is:

If you go back one minute in time prior to your point, is this not an unborn human being then?

How about two minutes prior?

Three? etc

0 Replies

Frank !!!

Excellent to have you back !!!

I've needed your input on this

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1781939&highlight=#1781939

for months now!

...if you would be so kind.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Seems like Foxfire's argument is the same one that was once used about slavery. The states ought to be the ones to decide if it should be illegal or not.

Not much of an argument, in my opinion.

In any case, I do hope the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade. I even hope they do reverse it. We should get what we deserve.

I think it's referred to as State sovereignty. Maybe that's a time that has come and gone. There is a price to pay no matter what direction we take.

Ouch.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I think it's referred to as State sovereignty. Maybe that's a time that has come and gone........

I, for one, still believe the concept of a limited federal government with most of the governing power left at the municipal and state levels is the best.

The 10th amendment has never been repealed and I think much of the federal overreach could be done away with if state and local officials ever had the guts to challenge it. But they don't, for the most part.

We get bribed with our own money ("see what we in Washington have done for you? we have given you $xxxx for this and $xxxx for that" ) and we are too passive to say "well before you took it, the money was ours anyway and we could've done more if we had kept it and didn't lose the part you siphoned off to run the bureaucracy."

Abortion was handled as a state matter for many years and since the Constitution has nothing to say regarding any right to an abortion, it should have remained so.

0 Replies

I think the states being so independant really hampers the "united" states. In my country our states have much less control. (but then we are a much smaller population)...bit off topic perhaps.

Looks like we are going to get RU 486 now. We've just removed the veto power from our (Catholic) minister for health.

0 Replies

A rejection of an all powerful central government is the foundation by which the American Revolution and the U.S Declaration of Independence came to be.

The states are sovereign and were only united for the original purpose of defending against foreign invaders.

Britain was nowhere near the threat the states face now.

Power corrupts.....absolute power....well you know the rest.

Independence goes hand in hand with freedom......it never hampers.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I think the states being so independant really hampers the "united" states. In my country our states have much less control. (but then we are a much smaller population)...bit off topic perhaps.

Looks like we are going to get RU 486 now. We've just removed the veto power from our (Catholic) minister for health.

The funny thing is many would take these events as being a good thing.

The dangers of having a theocratic led government are the same as a secular one that gains all power and authority over the people.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I think the states being so independant really hampers the "united" states. In my country our states have much less control. (but then we are a much smaller population)...bit off topic perhaps.

Looks like we are going to get RU 486 now. We've just removed the veto power from our (Catholic) minister for health.

Taking into consideration your other views of what the U.S. should and shouldn't be, I think your statement is a great confirmation that limited central government is the right way to go.

South Dakota is not the only state that is actively restricting the barbaric abortion practice. It's being done in many others as well.

As modern fetalogy continues to enlighten us regarding the unborn's medical status, the public continues to move more and more toward the pro-life position.

Those who are holding tight to their blinders by insisting that the unborn is just 'a blob of tissue' are simply on the wrong side of history.

The pro-abortion camp's continual rejection of medical science is all the more fascinating because the political left is so accustomed to considering itself progressive and modern, while painting it's opposition as backward and 'opposed to science' in other areas.

For those in the middle, who are not at all sure when life begins, it seems to make a lot of sense to err on the side of caution by protecting life instead of erring on the side of recklessness and death by insisting on an unobstructed 'right' to end the life of the unborn.

0 Replies

real life,

Very well put. Err on the side of caution, indeed. Seems the logical and reasonable thing to do. :wink:

0 Replies

No one...is restricting abortion.

All these idiots are doing is making it less safe for the women opting for abortion.

What a pity we supposedly intelligent beings are still so mired in superstition and fear of boogymen gods and the kinds of things we suppose offend them.

0 Replies

Frank,

Yep, you're back all right! Ok, this is the deal. Not everyone is against abortion for religious reasons, Frank. Some people don't agree with abortion and also do not believe in or know if there is a god or not. So, your statement simply does not apply to them.

Good morning, BTW!

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

A rejection of an all powerful central government is the foundation by which the American Revolution and the U.S Declaration of Independence came to be.

Not really true. The American Revolution was fought against monarchy. Many leaders of the revolution also felt that establishing a strong democratic central government was important for national unity and economic reasons.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Yep, you're back all right! Ok, this is the deal. Not everyone is against abortion for religious reasons, Frank. Some people don't agree with abortion and also do not believe in or know if there is a god or not. So, your statement simply does not apply to them.

Good morning, BTW!

Yeah, MA, I know that the religious zealots trying to impose their god's agenda on the rest of us have been peddling that particular bit of nonsense a lot these days.

But nonsense is what it is.

97.6% of all opposition to abortion is based on religious superstition.

Good to be back with ya'all. I hope your fine state has recovered as well as possible.

0 Replies

We're still dealing with Katrina but we ARE dealing with it.

Nah, the real nonsense is the nonsense that people seem to think some people don't just use common sense when it comes to abortion. Life is life.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know