Abortion

FreeDuck wrote:

It has been explained that (regardless of whether we agree) the state has a legitimate interest in legislating and/or regulating those things you listed. It does not have a legitimate interest to regulate or legislate reproduction.

Why?
Suicide is you destroying YOUR OWN BODY,not someone elses.
Prostitution is 2 willing and consenting adults doing what they want with THEIR OWN BODIES,not anyone elses.
Drugs are you destroying YOUR OWN BODY,nobody elses.
Public nudity is you showing off YOUR OWN BODY,nobody else's.

So,you are saying that it is only regarding abortion that the govt has no right to tell you what you can do with YOUR OWN BODY.

0 Replies

No, there are many cases where the government has no right to tell us what to do with our bodies. The government can't prevent us from being nude in our own homes or from having sex with another consenting adult or from eating peas, unfortunately.

I happen to agree with you about prostitution, nudity, and drugs. But the fact is that the state has been able to show a legitimate interest in regulating/legislating those things. In fact, once the fetus is viable, they have shown a legitimate state interest in regulating/legislating abortion. But prior to viability, there is no state interest.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

It has been explained that (regardless of whether we agree) the state has a legitimate interest in legislating and/or regulating those things you listed. It does not have a legitimate interest to regulate or legislate reproduction.

Not that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over what is and is not moral, as I have often stated, but the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade clearly states that the State does have a legitimate interest in regulating whether an unborn child has the right to live or die. It only restricts such interest based on the age/viability of the unborn.

We do not consider the 'welfare' of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. once a child is born. Those who are born are judged entitled to an unalienable right to life and any who would presume to intentionally end it would be subject to very close scrutiny.

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as evil people wanting to force their religious values down other people's throasts and conveniently ignore that many prolifers profess no religious convictions.

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as authoritarian dictators who want to deny other people rights to their own bodies. They however mostly refuse to enter the discussion whether the unborn, even in the ninth month, also has unalienable rights to his/her own body. The parent usually had a choice whether the baby would be there. The baby did not.

To say that being prolife is the same thing as being unconcerned for the welfare of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. is really a red herring and a colossal strawman. It ignores all the evidence to the contrary and is a totally separate discussion from the ethics/morality of a decision to end a life inside or outside the womb.

The issue of whether the unborn is a human being has to enter into that, and so far most of the pro-abortion crowd is saying that the unborn is neither human nor a life.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
It has been explained that (regardless of whether we agree) the state has a legitimate interest in legislating and/or regulating those things you listed. It does not have a legitimate interest to regulate or legislate reproduction.

Not that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over what is and is not moral, as I have often stated, but the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade clearl states that the State does have a legitimate interest in regulating whether an unborn child has the right to live or die. It only restricts such interest based on the age/viability of the unborn.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing here or not. My understanding of the decision is that, prior to viability, the state has no legitimate interest and cannot prevent abortions. Once the fetus reaches viability, the state has an interest, according to Roe v. Wade. If I'm wrong, I hope that Debra_Law will show up and correct me.

Quote:

We do not consider the 'welfare' of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. once a child is born. Those who are born are judged entitled to an unalienable right to life and any who would presume to intentionally end it would be subject to very close scrutiny.

No argument there.

Quote:

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as evil people wanting to force their religious values down other people's throasts and conveniently ignore that many prolifers profess no religious convictions.

And the anti-abortion crowd wants to paint pro-abortioners as evil feminazis who murder babies, ignoring the fact that most of us just prefer to let women decide for themselves whether, when, and how they should bear children. I don't know how someone can profess to believe in family values but want to take this one giant decision away from the family.

Quote:

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as authoritarian dictators who want to deny other people rights to their own bodies. They however refuse to enter the discussion whether the unborn, even in the ninth month, also has unalienable rights to his/her own body. The parent had a choice whether the baby would be there. The baby did not.

I'd be happy to enter that discussion. Babies and children do not have all the same choices as adults and parents. There is a simple biological and social reason for that. While I don't like to imagine late term abortions and would never choose to have one and would hope that nobody ever had to, the simple fact is that we are dealing with competing rights. Does the child have a right to his/her own body? Let's assume yes. When there is a conflict of interest, who's rights should prevail? Can we force one person to lend their internal organs to another in order to sustain their life? Can I force you to give me a kidney?

Quote:

To say that being prolife is the same thing as being unconcerned for the welfare of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. is really a red herring and a colossal strawman. It ignores all the evidence to the contrary and is a totally separate discussion from the ethics/morality of a decision to end a life inside or outside the womb.

Ah no, it was in direct response to this:

Foxfyre wrote:

Prolifers see two lives involved in a choice. Most pro abortion rights people see only one.

If my comment was a strawman, then so was yours.

Quote:

The issue of whether the unborn is a human being has to enter into that, and so far most of the pro-abortion crowd is saying that the unborn is neither human nor a life.

I think most of the pro-abortion crowd say that in the first trimester (when the majority of abortions occur) the unborn is not a human being but rather the potential to be one. Most people would say that a later term baby is a human being. That's what I say. However, I take the rather extreme position that it doesn't matter as long as it is using the body of another human being as a life support system. That's just my personal take.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Surely the choice to allow or deny life is deserving of a place in those discussions.

If you merely wanted to discuss the divergent views on life, there would be no problem. But, you want to impose your views on others and deny them the opportunity to think for themselves and choose what they believe is appropriate for their lives. But make no mistake, the existence of a pregnancy doesn't equate to a choice to "allow or deny life," because a lot of the time, there is no choice at all.

I became pregnant and had a miscarriage when I was a young woman. I had NO CHOICE whether that POTENTIAL life would be "allowed" or "denied."

This woman didn't have a choice to "allow or deny life" to the potential life that she was carrying even though she carried her pregnancy to full term:

Quote:

BILL CREATES SPECIAL DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR STILLBORN INFANTS

Minutes before Lynn Barberian gave birth in April 2000, doctors detected a heartbeat coming from her soon-to-be-born daughter. But then something tragic happened and Barbarian's first child was delivered stillborn.

Later, when she was putting together a small scrapbook and went to get a copy of her daughter's birth certificate from the local clerk, the Medford resident was stunned and hurt to find out there wouldn't be one because her baby hadn't lived for an hour outside of the womb. . . .

http://www.missingangelsbill.org/news/20020725.html

Stillborn babies don't qualify for birth certificates nor do they qualify for regular death certificates. But, as a measure to comfort emotional grief, this woman's state will now allow her to obtain a special state-issued certificate called "Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillborn Birth."

In some states, even if a woman gives birth to a live infant, that infant is not vested with legal rights of inheritance unless it lives at least 120 hours outside the womb. Generally, life insurance policies do not cover infants until they are at least two months old.

Until an infant is actually born and survives the birth process, what exists is a potential life and nothing more (except perhaps the human emotions that attach to that potential life). It is truly a personal tragedy for someone like Lynn Barberian to want a child, to carry a pregnancy to term, to go through the birthing process, and yet go home without a live infant in her arms. The potential to give birth to a live infant was there, but something went wrong and that potentiality was not brought into fruition. But Lynn Barberian's experience is not unique. There are thousands and thousands of fetal deaths and stillbirths that occur in this nation every year.

Despite your illusions, when a woman discovers she is pregnant, she is not carrying certain life that will result in a live birth and a living/breathing human being, she is carrying a potential for life. The choice whether she terminates that potentiality in the early stages of pregnancy is hers and hers alone. Why do you think you have any right to interfere in the personal and private decisions of other women?

You can discuss potential life and what it means to you with respect to your emotions and to your morals all you want. It's when you take that discussion a step further and IMPOSE your views on others that causes a problem and violates the civil rights of people who don't agree with you.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
It has been explained that (regardless of whether we agree) the state has a legitimate interest in legislating and/or regulating those things you listed. It does not have a legitimate interest to regulate or legislate reproduction.

Not that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over what is and is not moral, as I have often stated, but the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade clearl states that the State does have a legitimate interest in regulating whether an unborn child has the right to live or die. It only restricts such interest based on the age/viability of the unborn.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing here or not. My understanding of the decision is that, prior to viability, the state has no legitimate interest and cannot prevent abortions. Once the fetus reaches viability, the state has an interest, according to Roe v. Wade. If I'm wrong, I hope that Debra_Law will show up and correct me.

You may have intended something different, but I took your comment to mean that the State had no interest in reproduction based on this direct quote of yours in response to MM's list of other things related to human rights that the State does regulate:

Quote:

It has been explained that (regardless of whether we agree) the state has a legitimate interest in legislating and/or regulating those things you listed. It does not have a legitimate interest to regulate or legislate reproduction.

Quote:

We do not consider the 'welfare' of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. once a child is born. Those who are born are judged entitled to an unalienable right to life and any who would presume to intentionally end it would be subject to very close scrutiny.

No argument there.

Quote:

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as evil people wanting to force their religious values down other people's throasts and conveniently ignore that many prolifers profess no religious convictions.

And the anti-abortion crowd wants to paint pro-abortioners as evil feminazis who murder babies, ignoring the fact that most of us just prefer to let women decide for themselves whether, when, and how they should bear children. I don't know how someone can profess to believe in family values but want to take this one giant decision away from the family.

Can you show me a quote from the prolifers in this thread (or any other abortion thread) where prolifers have characterized pro-abortion people in such a manner? At least you agree that this is how pro-abortion people often characterize prolifers.

Quote:

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as authoritarian dictators who want to deny other people rights to their own bodies. They however refuse to enter the discussion whether the unborn, even in the ninth month, also has unalienable rights to his/her own body. The parent had a choice whether the baby would be there. The baby did not.

I'd be happy to enter that discussion. Babies and children do not have all the same choices as adults and parents. There is a simple biological and social reason for that. While I don't like to imagine late term abortions and would never choose to have one and would hope that nobody ever had to, the simple fact is that we are dealing with competing rights. Does the child have a right to his/her own body? Let's assume yes. When there is a conflict of interest, who's rights should prevail? Can we force one person to lend their internal organs to another in order to sustain their life? Can I force you to give me a kidney?

Again you are comparing apples and oranges. We were not talking about choosing between the life of the mother vs the life of the baby. I'll concede that such distinction was not made, but it has been implied by all prolifers. We have been talking about the convenience of the mother or spouse or siblings etc. vs the life of the unborn. Making the heart wrenching decision whether the baby or mother will live when both cannot is a different discussion and one in which I would never presume to judge on any ethical or moral grounds.

Quote:

To say that being prolife is the same thing as being unconcerned for the welfare of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. is really a red herring and a colossal strawman. It ignores all the evidence to the contrary and is a totally separate discussion from the ethics/morality of a decision to end a life inside or outside the womb.

Ah no, it was in direct response to this:

Foxfyre wrote:

Prolifers see two lives involved in a choice. Most pro abortion rights people see only one.

If my comment was a strawman, then so was yours.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can extrapolate that statement to somehow being unconcerned for the welfare of the parents, etc. I made a statement at face value that did not change the premise of the discussion in the least. So, no red herring. No strawman.

Quote:

The issue of whether the unborn is a human being has to enter into that, and so far most of the pro-abortion crowd is saying that the unborn is neither human nor a life.

I think most of the pro-abortion crowd say that in the first trimester (when the majority of abortions occur) the unborn is not a human being but rather the potential to be one. Most people would say that a later term baby is a human being. That's what I say. However, I take the rather extreme position that it doesn't matter as long as it is using the body of another human being as a life support system. That's just my personal take.[/quote]

I am going by posts from the pro-abortion rights group the last few days that it isn't a life--it's a potential life; it isn't human, it's the seeds of a human etc.--that are used by many to justify killing it. (I am cutting Debra some slack on that one as she seems to appreciate the propriety of limiting the right to abortion at least after a certain amount of time has passed.)

I accept your view that the woman has no responsibility whatsoever for her actions and that despite any irresponsibility on her part, she should not be held accountable for the new life she has helped create but wishes to destroy even in the moments before birth. You apparently have a lot of company in that view. I think I even understand why you hold that view and that you are convinced that it is reasonable.

I hope the discussion can continue with those who do hold the conviction that the unborn is a new human being, a human life, and that there is room for consideration of how, when, and why such a life can be ended.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Not that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over what is and is not moral, as I have often stated, but the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade clearly states that the State does have a legitimate interest in regulating whether an unborn child has the right to live or die. It only restricts such interest based on the age/viability of the unborn.

The Supreme Court is able to discern whether a challenged state law is based on majoritarian morals and nothing else. See Lawrence v. Texas. You and your friends can decide for yourselves what is moral or immoral and refrain from engaging in conduct that you find morally reprehensible. However, when you and your friends attempt to IMPOSE your moral views on others via the operation of state laws, then we have a constitutional problem. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies involving the Constitution.

You have mischaracterized the holding in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court did not say a state has a legitimate interest in regulating whether "an unborn child has the right to live or die." You have put words in the mouths of the justices that they never uttered. The Supreme Court ruled, once a fetus is viable, the state has a compelling interest in protecting POTENTIAL LIFE except when terminating that potential life is necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The court never said that potential life has any recognizable or enforceable right to life that was being left to the discretion of the states. The court specifically ruled that a fetus is NOT a person and does NOT have a right to life recognizable or enforceable by the supreme law of the land--and the supreme law of the land trumps any state law to the contrary.

Quote:

We do not consider the 'welfare' of the parents, other siblings, etc. etc. etc. once a child is born. Those who are born are judged entitled to an unalienable right to life and any who would presume to intentionally end it would be subject to very close scrutiny. . . .

The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as authoritarian dictators who want to deny other people rights to their own bodies. They however mostly refuse to enter the discussion whether the unborn, even in the ninth month, also has unalienable rights to his/her own body.

You conveniently ignore all discussions wherein people have told you that they disagree with your views and have stated a contrary view that a potential life does not have an "unalienable" right to life protected by the constitution. You misunderstand the nature of "unalienable" rights. You also mischaracterize the disagreement with your views and you dishonestly claim people have refused to enter the discussion when, in fact, they have entered the discussion.

Having a discussion, however, is not your agenda. You want to have a vote wherein the majority of the voters may impose their moral views on individuals who do not share those moral views. You fail to understand that you cannot strip other people of their constitutionally-protected rights through the passage of laws.

0 Replies

Debra writes

Quote:

You can discuss potential life and what it means to you with respect to your emotions and to your morals all you want. It's when you take that discussion a step further and IMPOSE your views on others that causes a problem and violates the civil rights of people who don't agree with you.

To accept your conclusion about what I do and do not want about IMPOSING my views on others, I have to accept your opinion that an unborn baby is not a life. I don't. Nor do I hand it over to the Congress or the judicial system to define what is and what is not life.

I think it perfectly appropriate to IMPOSE my views on other people as to whether than can neglect, abuse, injure, or kill their born children. I see those children as human beings.

I see an unborn baby the same way, just significantly younger than the born ones. The decisions as to when an insurance policy kicks in or when a birth certificate is issued are legal matters and in my opinion are not relevant to the larger issue of what is life.

The fact that all unborn babies do not live or that some do not survive the birth process is a fact. It is also a fact that all born babies do not live to become adults. The fact in either case does not make a good case for terminating a life that might not end 'naturally'.

Again the law is what it is, but it does not dictate what a person's ethics or morality must be.

To be consistent here, who are you or anybody else to IMPOSE your opinion that I am wrong or that your group can decide whether an unborn baby lives or dies but prolifers have no part in such decision?

0 Replies

Isnt the pro-abortion crowd,trying to impose their views on others?
By telling me that I have to allow or accept something I might be opposed to,thats just as bad as the pro-life crowd telling me that I must oppose abortions.

Thats why it should be a state matter,not federal.
Let each ststes voters decide what they want.

Why is the pro-abortion crowd opposed to that?
If the majority of the country demands the right to have abortions,then it should be an overwhelming vote in their favor.

0 Replies

I've been doing some searches to look up a few things. I think I have finally found the actual impetus behind the "pro-life" movement. Now THIS makes sense!!

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=slv1-sbc&p=adoptable+babies&u=www.childtrafficking.com/Content/Library/Download.php%3FDID%3Da86c450b76fb8c371afead6410d55534%7C565f5c&w=adoptable+babies&d=K3E0lm1aMO6S&icp=1&.intl=us

I hope this link works

Anon

0 Replies

I am well aware of the childtrafficking site--the link doesn't work--and if you think that the orgin of the prolife movement, you're very very VERY wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am well aware of the childtrafficking site--the link doesn't work--and if you think that the orgin of the prolife movement, you're very very VERY wrong.

Damn!! I'm trying to get one that does work!!

It talks about how "Infant Adoption is Big Business in America".

It all comes down to money Smile

What a hoot!! Now that's a conservative "family value"!!

Anon

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You may have intended something different, but I took your comment to mean that the State had no interest in reproduction based on this direct quote of yours in response to MM's list of other things related to human rights that the State does regulate:

The state has no interest in reproduction. But the state MAY have an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child once it reaches viability. Not exactly the same thing.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The pro-abortion crowd wants to paint prolifers as evil people wanting to force their religious values down other people's throasts and conveniently ignore that many prolifers profess no religious convictions.

And the anti-abortion crowd wants to paint pro-abortioners as evil feminazis who murder babies, ignoring the fact that most of us just prefer to let women decide for themselves whether, when, and how they should bear children. I don't know how someone can profess to believe in family values but want to take this one giant decision away from the family.

Foxfyre wrote:

Can you show me a quote from the prolifers in this thread (or any other abortion thread) where prolifers have characterized pro-abortion people in such a manner? At least you agree that this is how pro-abortion people often characterize prolifers.

Sure, but I'll expect reciprocity.

on page 9 John Creasy wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:
Don't be so harsh on him Anon, although he wishes to, he hasn't gotten a voice or vote in it anyway.

Are you kidding me?? The father has no vote??? Bullsh!t. That's a perfect example of feminism gone overboard.

on page 14 John Creasy wrote:

Spare me your femi-nazi rhetoric. If you stopped obsessing about men trying to control you, you might see how incredibly selfish you sound.

[URL=http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2005/09/michigan_judge.html]Conservative blogger[/URL] wrote:

I'm sure Wendy and the rest of the liberal baby killers are as aware as I am that this law was passed after THE PEOPLE -- nearly 500,000 Michigan residents -- petitioned the legislature to re-introduce the Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act after the Republican legislature passed it in 2003 and it was vetoed by leftist Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Your turn.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again you are comparing apples and oranges. We were not talking about choosing between the life of the mother vs the life of the baby. I'll concede that such distinction was not made, but it has been implied by all prolifers. We have been talking about the convenience of the mother or spouse or siblings etc. vs the life of the unborn. Making the heart wrenching decision whether the baby or mother will live when both cannot is a different discussion and one in which I would never presume to judge on any ethical or moral grounds.

No, we were talking about the rights of the mother to her own body vs. the rights of the baby to its.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can extrapolate that statement to somehow being unconcerned for the welfare of the parents, etc. I made a statement at face value that did not change the premise of the discussion in the least. So, no red herring. No strawman.

That would be because I didn't extrapolate what you said to being unconcerned for the welfare of the parents. You said pro-abortion people are only concerned with one life and pro-lifers are concerned with two. I begged to differ. If the number of lives a person is concerned about is a red herring, well, you opened that door.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The issue of whether the unborn is a human being has to enter into that, and so far most of the pro-abortion crowd is saying that the unborn is neither human nor a life.

I think most of the pro-abortion crowd say that in the first trimester (when the majority of abortions occur) the unborn is not a human being but rather the potential to be one. Most people would say that a later term baby is a human being. That's what I say. However, I take the rather extreme position that it doesn't matter as long as it is using the body of another human being as a life support system. That's just my personal take.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am going by posts from the pro-abortion rights group the last few days that it isn't a life--it's a potential life; it isn't human, it's the seeds of a human etc.--that are used by many to justify killing it. (I am cutting Debra some slack on that one as she seems to appreciate the propriety of limiting the right to abortion at least after a certain amount of time has passed.)

I think most people in this thread are speaking of the most common case: abortions which happen in the first trimester.

Quote:

I accept your view that the woman has no responsibility whatsoever for her actions and that despite any irresponsibility on her part, she should not be held accountable for the new life she has helped create but wishes to destroy even in the moments before birth.

Well, I don't accept this classic strawman. Having an abortion IS accepting responsibility not only for her (and her partner's) actions but for the life of the potential child. She is responsible for deciding if the time and place are right for bringing children into this world.

Quote:

You apparently have a lot of company in that view. I think I even understand why you hold that view and that you are convinced that it is reasonable.

I think that you are speaking to yourself at this point. You apparently need to feel morally superior and the only way you can do that is to reduce my argument to one of "believing that a woman is not responsible for her actions".

0 Replies

Freeduck, I simply don't have time to respond point by point today. I am not tracking your reasoning at all when you say something and, when I reference it, you say you intended something else.

I will concede that you did find at least one numbnut on the prolife side that debates via insulting implication, and I deplore that type of debate and am gratified that MOST prolifers do not engage in it.

But your last comment:

Quote:

I think that you are speaking to yourself at this point. You apparently need to feel morally superior and the only way you can do that is to reduce my argument to one of "believing that a woman is not responsible for her actions".

gravitates into the personal insult classification, and that in my view dissolves any constructive discussion into futility.

Get back on track with arguing your point of view rather than what appears to be an interest in discrediting me, and we'll continue.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Not that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over what is and is not moral, as I have often stated, but the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade clearl states that the State does have a legitimate interest in regulating whether an unborn child has the right to live or die. It only restricts such interest based on the age/viability of the unborn.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing here or not. My understanding of the decision is that, prior to viability, the state has no legitimate interest and cannot prevent abortions. Once the fetus reaches viability, the state has an interest, according to Roe v. Wade. If I'm wrong, I hope that Debra_Law will show up and correct me.

Prior to viability, a state DOES indeed have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion as a medical procedure for the safety and health of the woman. The state may require informed consent and the state may require a short waiting period to ensure that the woman's decision is indeed informed and well-considered SO LONG AS the regulation does not impose an undue burden on the woman's constitutionally-protected right to determine her own procreative destiny during the early stages of pregnancy (before the fetus is viable).

It is only when the fetus is viable that the state has any legitimate interest at all in protecting potential life. Nevertheless, when the court balances the state's interests and the woman's interests, the state's interest in protecting potential life cannot trump a woman's paramount interest in her own life and health. The state may further the STATE'S legitimate interest in protecting potential life by prohibiting abortions ONLY IF the state provides an exception to the prohibition when termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the life or health of the woman.

0 Replies

Thanks Debra_Law.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But your last comment:

Quote:
I think that you are speaking to yourself at this point. You apparently need to feel morally superior and the only way you can do that is to reduce my argument to one of "believing that a woman is not responsible for her actions".

gravitates into the personal insult classification, and that in my view dissolves any constructive discussion into futility.

Get back on track with arguing your point of view rather than what appears to be an interest in discrediting me, and we'll continue.

What was your purpose in reducing my argument to believing that a woman is not responsible for her actions if not to discredit me and imply that I don't believe in personal responsibilty? I think my response was entirely warranted in the face of that.

But as to your earlier problem with "referencing things I've said" and me saying I didn't mean it, I think you are mistaken and would be happy to lay it all out for you in another post.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But your last comment:

Quote:
I think that you are speaking to yourself at this point. You apparently need to feel morally superior and the only way you can do that is to reduce my argument to one of "believing that a woman is not responsible for her actions".

gravitates into the personal insult classification, and that in my view dissolves any constructive discussion into futility.

Get back on track with arguing your point of view rather than what appears to be an interest in discrediting me, and we'll continue.

What was your purpose in reducing my argument to believing that a woman is not responsible for her actions if not to discredit me and imply that I don't believe in personal responsibilty? I think my response was entirely warranted in the face of that.

But as to your earlier problem with "referencing things I've said" and me saying I didn't mean it, I think you are mistaken and would be happy to lay it all out for you in another post.

Point accepted that this could infer an insult if this was not your intent. It was not meant as an insult but was meant as an acknowledgement that you think abortion should be legal at any time for any reason and that is based on your belief in the woman's right to choose. How that SOUNDS to somebody like me is that you do not think the woman's choices that resulted in pregnancy should be any kind of factor nor is the unborn child entitled to any consideration in the decision. Is that not what you said when you said abortion should be legal whenever?

If you DID intend to say that abortion should be legal whenever, are you also saying that abortion should not be restricted no matter how irresponsible a woman might be? If you do not believe that, then why would you say that abortion should not be restricted under any circumstances? You said that after my comments re personal responsibility.

I did NOT say that you do not believe in personal responsibility in any other instance. You projected that from what I did say.

0 Replies

States used to regulate it. Women from all over the country used to travel to New York and other places where the laws were more liberal. This is discriminatory against women who cannot afford the money and time to travel. Unless you mean it to be like Ireland, where it is illegal to leave Ireland to obtain an abortion. (Illegal to leave Illinois for a medical procedure???)

The "pro-abortion crowd" isn't trying to force anybody to do anything, or change anybody's mind on having their own abortion. The anti-freedom crowd, on the other hand, is trying to forbid me from doing what I believe is morally correct and responsible behavior -- to not bear an unwanted child.

0 Replies

No Wy, it is not anti-freedom.

It is belief that the unborn child is a human being and a life deserving of due consideration in any decision made as to whether s/he lives or dies.

That is the very heart and 100% total basis for this whole debate.

If you believe the unborn is not a human being, then you won't care whether it lives or dies.

If you believe it is, then you do care as you care about any other human being. You are debating the fate, rights, and ramifications for not just one woman, but one woman plus an unborn child.

When you look at it that way, it doesn't come down to anybody trying to take away a woman's rights, but an issue of protecting the rights of that second life too.

When you take on a passenger in your car, it is your life, your car, your property, etc. etc. If you decide you don't want that passenger in your car and s/he won't leave voluntarily, but s/he is not intentionally causing you any harm, do you have the right to push that person out of your moving vehicle?

It's the same principle.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know