ABORTION.......

Okay, MA...and I apologize for the "dense" remark.

Dinner calls.

I'll be back with a more detailed explanation.

You won't successfully debate Frank with a religious angle though, Momma. Eventually he usually boils down his personal views to something like
THIS

Well, at least you are finally getting close to what I mean.

"I have my reasons for advocating certain positions…and my reasons for opposing certain positions. I am assuming you do also."

I know you have your reasons. What I am asking is what reason is it ok to advocate for someone trying to take away someone's right and not okay to try to take away someone elses?

Frank, I am not trying to argue here. I just am trying to understand. I had always thought you are an advocate for human rights (in general), but it seems you are not.

Okay...dinner is over.

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, at least you are finally getting close to what I mean.

"I have my reasons for advocating certain positions…and my reasons for opposing certain positions. I am assuming you do also."

I know you have your reasons. What I am asking is what reason is it ok to advocate for someone trying to take away someone's right and not okay to try to take away someone elses?

For the same reason it is okay to oppose what was once the "right" to own slaves…and not oppose the "right" to vote.

There is absolutely no contradiction in advocating one thing…that is called a "right"…and opposing another called the same thing.

We each make individual decisions based on how we feel about the subject matter.

I can oppose, for instance, the "right" to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle, in a theater, or on a golf course when I am trying to putt…and advocate the "right" to use a cell phone while walking down the street.

There is no contradiction here.

I consider religion to be a net negative for society…and I would love to see it completely eradicated from the planet. I have no delusions that this will EVER happen…but I can want it…and advocate it. I can also advocate a lesser form of that grand scheme…namely, completely divorcing state from religion (advocating the right of freedom FROM religion)…which will not infringe on your right to practice your religion.

That lesser form would simply not allow the government to advocate FOR religion…as well as BETWEEN religions. Freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion.

If you want to worship your god…do so. But the government should not be allowed to include references to gods on our money or in our national pledge of allegiance to our country.

No contradiction.

You, on the other hand, can oppose what I am advocating.

In the case of abortion rights…it is my position (one which I advocate) that a woman should be guaranteed the right legally to terminate a pregnancy for reasons that she deems appropriate. I advocate that…and I strongly oppose the position of people who want to take that right away.

Simply because I do that…does not mean that I am forever…and in every instance…required to champion every supposed right that a citizen may want…such as the right to talk on a cell phone while driving a motor vehicle.

I may champion the right of a person to smoke a cigarette or cigar if they choose…but I can, at the same time, oppose their supposed "right" to do it where and when they like…including restaurants, buses, subways, trains, or planes.

There is no contradiction.

Simply because I advocate the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy…does not mean that I must advocate any presumed right of a Christian majority to have pictures of Jesus included on our money and on our flag.

So…let's see where this gets us.

I see no contradiction or hypocrisy in my position.

If you do…we will discuss it further.

Quote:

Frank, I am not trying to argue here. I just am trying to understand. I had always thought you are an advocate for human rights (in general), but it seems you are not.

Actually I am an advocate for human rights…but that does not mean I cannot bring some sense of proportion to the issue. I certainly would not advocate a right to defecate in the streets. But not doing so would not mean that I am shirking my responsibility to be an advocate for human rights.

I CONSIDER RELIGION TO BE A NET NEGATIVE FOR SOCIETY AND HUMANITY…and in my opinion, I have an obligation to oppose it as strongly as possible.

You obviously feel differently on the issue…and you may feel an obligation to oppose me on this.

I have no problem with that.

We have opposing views on the abortion rights issue…and you should advocate for your side and oppose my side of the issue…and I should advocate for my side and oppose your side also.

Insofar as these kinds of things are amenable to compromise…compromise ought to be attempted, but I despair of any compromise on this particular issue…and I truly do not trust the anti-choice side at all.

[Thank you. I appreciate you making that clear for me.

I only have one question. In this sentence:

"Simply because I advocate the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy…does not mean that I must advocate any presumed right of a Christian majority to have pictures of Jesus included on our money and on our flag."

Why did you use the term "presumed right of a Christian....?"

Just curious.

Momma Angel wrote:

[Thank you. I appreciate you making that clear for me.

I only have one question. In this sentence:

"Simply because I advocate the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy…does not mean that I must advocate any presumed right of a Christian majority to have pictures of Jesus included on our money and on our flag."

Why did you use the term "presumed right of a Christian....?"

Just curious.

Because there is no such right...and I was trying to give it the sound of a hypothetical...which it was.

Fan club? No. Just co-pro lifers on a very important issue, and probably opponents on the next.

But each and every one has provided reasoned and logical rationale for their point of view.

The pro-abortion people have used 'zygote' and 'fetus' as synonyms for non-human beings and the law that a woman is allowed to kill her baby at any point prior to complete birth as a moral license to do so. They have absolutely nothing else to add to the debate.

I will go with my group. They've certainly got more going for them than the pro-aboriton side does.

Foxfyre wrote:

Fan club? No. Just co-pro lifers on a very important issue, and probably opponents on the next.

But each and every one has provided reasoned and logical rationale for their point of view.

The pro-abortion people have used 'zygote' and 'fetus' as synonyms for non-human beings and the law that a woman is allowed to kill her baby at any point prior to complete birth as a moral license to do so. They have absolutely nothing else to add to the debate.

I will go with my group. They've certainly got more going for them than the pro-aboriton side does.

You are certainly correct on this Foxfyre.

The fans of abortion pussyfoot around the issue, invent semantic dodges, and hide behind it's current legal status in much the same way that slaveholders cited the US Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision to justify their position that a black man wasn't a 'person' under US law and therefore had no rights.

real life wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Fan club? No. Just co-pro lifers on a very important issue, and probably opponents on the next.

But each and every one has provided reasoned and logical rationale for their point of view.

The pro-abortion people have used 'zygote' and 'fetus' as synonyms for non-human beings and the law that a woman is allowed to kill her baby at any point prior to complete birth as a moral license to do so. They have absolutely nothing else to add to the debate.

I will go with my group. They've certainly got more going for them than the pro-aboriton side does.

You are certainly correct on this Foxfyre.

The fans of abortion pussyfoot around the issue, invent semantic dodges, and hide behind it's current legal status in much the same way that slaveholders cited the US Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision to justify their position that a black man wasn't a 'person' under US law and therefore had no rights.

For your side to use the "slavery" issue is particularly humorous.

You people would make slaves of women. You want them to be like slaves...with no control over their own bodies.

But...I guess you folks are so deluded....you cannot see the irony.

Questioner,

Well, perhaps you need to explain to me how there is a difference between me trying to take away a woman's choice concerning abortion and Frank's trying to take away my choice for religion?

Seems to me, if he thinks I am trying to take away someone's right then he is also trying to take away someone's right. And I would like to know how he can say one is ok and the other is not.

If they want control over their own bodies, why don't they get sterilized to prevent the possibility of pregnancy rather than use abortion as a form of birth control.

Intrepid wrote:

If they want control over their own bodies, why don't they get sterilized to prevent the possibility of pregnancy rather than use abortion as a form of birth control.

Because they don't want to...and they ought to have the right not to want to.

You really do hate women, don't you!

The welfare of children, however is our business. The real issue at stake here is that the prolife people believe that the being in the womb is a baby.

The pro-abortion people have to see it as sub-human, a non person, a dispensable 'parasite' (or adjective of your choice) to justify killing it at any time, in any place, for any reason.

Real Life's comparison therefore is quite appropriate. Years ago, our ancesters had to see black people as sub-humans, non persons, dispensable property in order to justify slavery.

Nobody wants to take away a woman's rights. But the prolife group wants the woman who does not want a child to take responsibility to see that she does not become pregnant. If she does, they want her to take responsibility for the child that she carries.

The prolife groups sees the mother and baby as different beings and that the mother has responsibility for her baby within the womb as much as she has responsibility for it outside the womb.

Foxfyre wrote:

The welfare of children, however is our business. The real issue at stake here is that the prolife people believe that the being in the womb is a baby.

Oh...I see. And if the anti-choice people "believed" that steer meat is sacred and should not be eaten...the rest of us would have to give up steaks and hamburgers?

Because a few religious nut cases think a fertilized egg is a living human being...we are supposed to tell women that a clump of undifferentiated cells has rights that supercede their rights?

That is sick!

Quote:

The pro-abortion people have to see it as sub-human, a non person, a dispensable 'parasite' (or adjective of your choice) to justify killing it at any time, in any place, for any reason.

The pro-choice people see a fetus for exactly what it is...a fetus.

Why don't you deal with that?

Quote:

Real Life's comparison therefore is quite appropriate. Years ago, our ancesters had to see black people as sub-humans, non persons, dispensable property in order to justify slavery.

No they really didn't. All they had to do was to open up any Bible and point to the passage at Leviticus 25:44ff...where the god of the Bible clearly says:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."

There was no reason to do any of that other stuff to "justify" slavery.

Quote:

Nobody wants to take away a woman's rights. But the prolife group wants the woman who does not want a child to take responsibility to see that she does not become pregnant. If she does, they want her to take responsibility for the child that she carries.

Who do you think you are kidding?

Of course you people want to take away a woman's rights.

You want to take away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses to do so.

Where do you get off pretending that you do not want to take a woman's rights away?

Quote:

The prolife groups sees the mother and baby as different beings and that the mother has responsibility for her baby within the womb as much as she has responsibility for it outside the womb.

The anti-choice people want to take away a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy if she chooses.

That's it!

Any you people are not going to succeed.