Abortion

I don't know, but that's a good question. My knee jerk answer is that it's impossible to tell because our ideas of desirable qualities may not coincide with those qualities that are desirable for survival. So 100 years from now, someone could maybe look back and see that it was a valid theory for our time. But we can't tell because we're in it, so to speak.

FreeDuck wrote:

something funny chuckles???

John Creasy wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

something funny chuckles???

Prostitution is illegal in most states, ...

FreeDuck wrote:

something funny chuckles???

John Creasy wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

something funny chuckles???

Yes, giggles. DTOM is a man.

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't know, but that's a good question. My knee jerk answer is that it's impossible to tell because our ideas of desirable qualities may not coincide with those qualities that are desirable for survival. So 100 years from now, someone could maybe look back and see that it was a valid theory for our time. But we can't tell because we're in it, so to speak.

My thinking is that people are living longer than ever. Due to technological advances and caring people, people who should have died long ago are not only living longer but thriving.

Stephen Hawking is a great example of this. He is wheelchair bound, can not speak, can not feed himself, needs round the clock care, yet despite all of that he writes books, gives speaches, is the father of three children and is one of the worlds greatest minds. Natural selection should have taken him long ago, instead he thrives.

You have set forth a moral judgment. Implicit in your statement above is a willingness to forgive a woman for her first transgression if she learns a "life altering" lesson, and a willingness to morally condemn her and to deprive her of her liberty interests if she doesn't conform herself to your views of right and wrong.

I have very definately set forth a moral judgment, and one for which I make no apologies.

The issue of this thread, for me, is support of legalized abortion. Not forgiveness, moral condemnation or any woman conforming with my views of right and wrong. To the extent that abortion appears to be used as a form of contraceptive by women who are too irresponsible to utilize widely available means not requiring the termination of a pregnancy, my support for legalized abortion diminishes.

One of the consistent elements of the hard core "Pro-Choice" position that I find very troublesome is it's refusal to recognize the humanity of the unborn child. I suppose this is understandable though. It is difficult to argue that a woman has the right of absolute control over her body, if one recognizes that a fetus is a human and as such has rights as well, (and competing rights when it comes to abortion). It is easier to simply adhere unfailingly to the contention that a fetus has no humanity until it is born, and can no longer be considered part of the mother's body. Until then it can be treated as if it were no more than a lump of tissue.

My view, and I believe it is consistent with the majority of my fellow Americans, is that an abortion is a horrible thing, and should not be considered lightly. Having some understanding of the tremendous impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman's life, I do not, contrary to your argument, want to impose my beliefs on women who find themselves faced with such a problem. This does not mean that I do not personally believe that abortion is wrong, because except under certain limited circumstances, I do think it is wrong. However, if a woman after struggling with her concious decides to have an abortion, I'm not prepared to condemn her morally or legally.

Yes, implicit in this internal compromise with my own beliefs is that the decision to have an abortion is a gut wrenching weighing of serious considerations, and one which no sane woman would want to repeat -- particularly when the means to avoid it are so readily available.

If, on the other hand, the decision is mundane, the experience merely an inconvenience, I cannot support a woman's right to exercise it.

Of course I understand that under any scenario there will be women for whom abortion is a casual affair, and thus far my support for legalized abortion encompasses the notion that a majority of women should not be penalized for a minority's actions, but there is a tipping point, and it may be that, for me, it has arrived.

I fully appreciate that my position can be criticized by both extremes of the issue, for inconsistent application of principle, but that is the lousy nature of this issue, and why it is so polarizing and so seemingly intractible

Fortunately for the people of this country, your moral views alone have no relevance in the application of our constitutional principles.

It is quite true that my moral views alone have no relevance in the application of our constitutional principles, but then I've never tried to argue that they do or should. It's fortunate that no one person's view control the law, so singling me out is not much of a barb. Whether or not I personally support a law, however, does have relevance - at minimum, it has the same relevance as my vote, and if my support, or lack thereof, aggregates with the positions of like minded citizens to the point that it represents a majority view, it will have quite a great deal of relevance.

My view, and I believe it is consistent with the majority of my fellow Americans, is that an abortion is a horrible thing, and should not be considered lightly. Having some understanding of the tremendous impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman's life, I do not, contrary to your argument, want to impose my beliefs on women who find themselves faced with such a problem. This does not mean that I do not personally believe that abortion is wrong, because except under certain limited circumstances, I do think it is wrong. However, if a woman after struggling with her concious decides to have an abortion, I'm not prepared to condemn her morally or legally.

I fully appreciate that my position can be criticized by both extremes of the issue, for inconsistent application of principle, but that is the lousy nature of this issue, and why it is so polarizing and so seemingly intractible

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

no, what's really funny here, is that you seem to believe that women are simply your personal legacy production machine.

btw, if there are any clowns around here...

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

......... I'll tell you one thing, no wife or girlfriend of mine would EVER abort my baby.

no I meant that I would not allow a woman to abort MY baby. Remember, that is the man's baby also. It's not just the woman's.

......Married, unmarried, in love or not, I wouldn't allow MY baby to be aborted.

....... trust me, if that is MY baby in the womb, I would do whatever is necessary to stop her from killing it, laws be damned.

......and if it came down to it, my principles as a man can differ from the stated law. In extreme cases, I don't rule out choosing my principles over the law.

.....Why would I care if she aborted my baby, if I didn't want to take care of it?

...... I don't care what the rest of women do. You can have abortions until your blue in the face. I'm just talking about my baby.

......The fact that the baby inside of her is a part of me. I would do whatever I had to do. What makes you think that she has the power to kill my baby without my consent?

There's nothing worse than a male feminist. It's quite sad really.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

My view, and I believe it is consistent with the majority of my fellow Americans, is that an abortion is a horrible thing, and should not be considered lightly. Having some understanding of the tremendous impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman's life, I do not, contrary to your argument, want to impose my beliefs on women who find themselves faced with such a problem. This does not mean that I do not personally believe that abortion is wrong, because except under certain limited circumstances, I do think it is wrong. However, if a woman after struggling with her concious decides to have an abortion, I'm not prepared to condemn her morally or legally.

I do not understand how something can be wrong but not condemnable. If something is wrong, then it deserves condemnation for its very wrongness, if nothing else.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I fully appreciate that my position can be criticized by both extremes of the issue, for inconsistent application of principle, but that is the lousy nature of this issue, and why it is so polarizing and so seemingly intractible

It is only intractable for those whose own moral standards are confused and self-contradictory.

I didn't see the part where John Creasy called DTOM selfish. I will have to go back and check that out.

FreeDuck,

Wait, I think we have a bit of miscommunication here.

1) Yes, it's the woman's main responsibility to do all she can do to not get pregnant if she does not want to be pregnant.

2) Yes, the man should also take steps to ensure there is no child, but since it is the woman that gets pregnant, then the ultimate responsibility is hers.

3) IF a man steps up to the plate and says he will take care of that child if the woman does not want the child, then I believe the woman should give birth and then left the man have the child.

I will always err on the side of giving the life to the child.

John Creasy seems willing to stand up to what he feels is his responsibility in this hypothetical situation. I see nothing wrong with that.

Yes, that woman has to go through nine months of morning sickness, stretch marks, and the pain of giving birth. Well, sorry. She should have thought about that before getting pregnant. The child's life IMO (especially in a situation where someone is willing to give it love and a home) is more important than the nine months that woman is going to have to get through.

This is a very hard issue on people. Extremely hard. Feelings get involved, rights get involved, etc. I will always stand up for the innocent in this issue and that innocent is the child and I will not apologize for that.