Abortion II

No it's not that at all. I just think that abortion is only concidered family planning if done early in the pregnacy i.e. the first tri-mester. Any famil planning after that should be looking for a family to adopt.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

No it's not that at all. I just think that abortion is only concidered family planning if done early in the pregnacy i.e. the first tri-mester. Any famil planning after that should be looking for a family to adopt.

Okay, so then in your view, when does the unborn become a living human being?

0 Replies

A living being? Well, I think that at the point that the child has all of it's organs developed for sustainment.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

A living being? Well, I think that at the point that the child has all of it's organs developed for sustainment.

Welcome to A2K Diest. You seem to be sincere in your views on this, but you can probably also see that some of us have a harder time drawing that hard line between human life and something that is less than a human life.

For instance, using your criteria, the preemie fighting for his/her life in an incubator would not be a human life. If all of its organs were developed for sustainment, s/he wouldn't need the incubator. I don't think you see a premature baby as less than human, however, so you can see that maybe it isn't quite so cut and dried?

0 Replies

Fairplay. However, No Preemie is born in the first Tri-mester. After the first Three monthes of pregnacy, I believe birth should occur and if premature, help given. I won't argue that.

0 Replies

Also. I am not Pro-Choice anymre than I am Pro-Life. But I can not assume the platform of either. Pro-Choice is for the choice, but not for the responcibility to make that choice in a respectable time. Pro-Life is just to hypocritical. Most Pro-Lifers are Pro-Deathpenalty and Pro-War. That just does not add up to me. If your platform is of life and compassion, you need to extend it to alll mankind.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Fairplay. However, No Preemie is born in the first Tri-mester. After the first Three monthes of pregnacy, I believe birth should occur and if premature, help given. I won't argue that.

I appreciate that. I also have a problem thinking that one hour or one day or one week, etc. before the second trimester begins makes any significant difference in whether a baby is a human being or not. Choosing that precise moment between life and something less than life is not something I feel qualified to do.

I concede, however, that it makes sense that abortion should probably be between a woman and her doctor in the first trimester as we really have no other way to establish legality. I have said that I will not judge victims of rape, incest, or some other situation that requires a very difficult choice.

I will remain in the camp, however, that believes in the value of life and that we all are impoverished when any life is seen as something that can just be casually discarded as a matter of convenience. I would hope that we as a people would return to that point of view as we will be a far more compassionate, humane, and civilized people when we do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I appreciate that. I also have a problem thinking that one hour or one day or one week, etc. before the second trimester begins makes any significant difference in whether a baby is a human being or not. Choosing that precise moment between life and something less than life is not something I feel qualified to do.

You are right. There is no difference. But with law involved, a destinction must be made. The end of the first tri-mester jus seemss to follow suit.

I agree with you about hoping our society can evolve beyond having to have this. I think that people should have the incentive to no never have to make that kind of choice, but I also know that our society does not offer that kind of security now. Someday maybe we will evolve beyond that: Where Abortion is legal but not practiced because it is no longer needed. I think that would be a greater feat than just simply aking it illegal.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Also. I am not Pro-Choice anymre than I am Pro-Life. But I can not assume the platform of either. Pro-Choice is for the choice, but not for the responcibility to make that choice in a respectable time. Pro-Life is just to hypocritical. Most Pro-Lifers are Pro-Deathpenalty and Pro-War. That just does not add up to me. If your platform is of life and compassion, you need to extend it to alll mankind.

Pro death penalty is very different from pro life. Pro life is a concept of whether the completely innocent shall live or die purely for the convenience or wishes of the parent. Pro death penalty is a belief that a civil and compassionate society is governed by law and there are appropriate penalties for violating the law. The ultimate penalty for the most terrible violations of law is the death penalty. It is never applied to the innocent. No hypocrisy there. (And many many prolifers are also opposed to the death penalty no matter what the person has done.)

Nobody I have ever known was pro war. I certainly am not. I believe all war to be a giant indecency that should never be inflicted upon humankind. I also believe that the absence of war is not necessarily peace and that there is no virtue in not defending oneself or others against those who would murder, oppress, persecute, or enslave them. Evenso, some prolifers are also conscientious objectors. No hypocrisy there either.

0 Replies

Hi Diest,

If the unborn has a heart that is beating and circulating blood through his body, and has brainwaves --- is that enough organs functioning to justify keeping him alive?

Or is there another organ that needs to function before you think he deserves to be protected from abortion?

0 Replies

I dmire your rationale, however it has not always been my experiance to have someone offer reasons instead of rhetoric. I am not Pro-War ether, I again am pushing for a system and culture where its burocracy can be strong enough to protect the inocent. Having said that, I know we aren't there yet. It would take a great deal to ever persude me to go to war. As for your statement on the death penalty, is your opinion based on your life experiances or your religion? I'm just curious. I can't support the death penalty in a black or white nature anymore than I can support either Pro-life or Pro-Choice. It's just not black or white for me.

And for the record: The Illinois Govenor a few ears back but a halt to all executions after finding out some large number of people had been falsely imprisoned and executed. After reopening many deathrow inmates cases, new evidence proved there inocence.

My big issue with the death penalty is that it is assigned by courts which have shown a history of rasism. (I know this is a totally ifferent subject.) Look at the statistics of how many Black people are on death row versus white? This obviously shows an error in our sentancing because it overwelmingly implies that Black men are more violent than white men. I just can't get behind that. So for me the death penalty may be apropriate in some cases, but the sentancing process is flawed grossly.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I dmire your rationale, however it has not always been my experiance to have someone offer reasons instead of rhetoric. I am not Pro-War ether, I again am pushing for a system and culture where its burocracy can be strong enough to protect the inocent. Having said that, I know we aren't there yet. It would take a great deal to ever persude me to go to war. As for your statement on the death penalty, is your opinion based on your life experiances or your religion? I'm just curious. I can't support the death penalty in a black or white nature anymore than I can support either Pro-life or Pro-Choice. It's just not black or white for me.

And for the record: The Illinois Govenor a few ears back but a halt to all executions after finding out some large number of people had been falsely imprisoned and executed. After reopening many deathrow inmates cases, new evidence proved there inocence.

My big issue with the death penalty is that it is assigned by courts which have shown a history of rasism. (I know this is a totally ifferent subject.) Look at the statistics of how many Black people are on death row versus white? This obviously shows an error in our sentancing because it overwelmingly implies that Black men are more violent than white men. I just can't get behind that. So for me the death penalty may be apropriate in some cases, but the sentancing process is flawed grossly.

The system of justice we have is that every person is entitled to a competent defense presented to a jury of his/her peers. As in all human endeavors it is imperfect, but it is the best, fairest, and most efficient system in the world. My opinion on the law is based partly on my life experiences and partly on common sense.

The penalty for shop lifting should reasonably be more severe than the penalty for jaywalking.

The penalty for burglary or robbery should reasonably be more severe than the penalty for shop lifting.

The penalty for assault and battery with the intent to do severe bodily harm should be reasonably be more severe than the penalty for burglary or robbery.

The penalty for murder should be reasonably be more severe than the penalty for assault and battery.

And for the relatively few who commit such horrible crimes inflicting maximum pain, suffering, and horror upon their victims, the penalty should be reasonably more severe than the penalty for murder. There reasonably should be a maximum penalty for those who, in this way, deliberately with foresight and malice forfeit their right to life.

It is not the trial process that determines what penalty the law requires, but it is the trial process that determines what category the offiense falls into. With all the modern DNA technology etc. and a decade of appeals and review available to convicted felons, these days, the chances of error are greatly diminished to practially insignificant. As we have seen, most error these days seems to be in favor of the law breaker.

To compare this with ending the life of a new human being because it is inconvenient for the parent just doesn't compute with me.

0 Replies

however our courts still sentance more black people to death than white for the same crimes. This cant be the best we can do.

0 Replies

I have to agree with Foxfyre. To try to tie the two issues in any manner, or to try to justify abortion based on one's perception of the death penalty makes no sense.

If you are against the death penalty for those guilty of heinous crimes, how could you be for the death penalty for the unborn who are innocent of any crime?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

however our courts still sentance more black people to death than white for the same crimes. This cant be the best we can do.

Do they? Or is that the standard line? Do you have statistics that show that a white person who committed an identical crime as a black person is less likely to receive the death penalty in the same court that sentences a black person to the death penalty?

The fact is that a disproportionate number of the brutal murders in this country are currently black on black. That does not mean that other people in the country do not commit brutal murders, but we can't get away from the fact that the crime rate is disproportionately high in some black communities. The honest, decent, hardworking black people in this country, even in those same communities, aren't any happier about that than is anybody else either. But we solve nothing if we do not acknowledge what is.

Somebody earlier in the thread said that a disproportionate number of abortions are also among certain mostly black communities. I don't know whether that is accurate or not, but it makes sense. (All my black friends except one are prolife and that one is certainly not the violent type.) Those who do not value the life of the innocent, however, would seem to be less likely to value the life of any others. People, black, white, polka dot, or other, who are taught to value life are very seldom those who commit savage crimes against other people.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I have to agree with Foxfyre. To try to tie the two issues in any manner, or to try to justify abortion based on one's perception of the death penalty makes no sense.

If you are against the death penalty for those guilty of heinous crimes, how could you be for the death penalty for the unborn who are innocent of any crime?

[CODE]

What doesn't make sense? It's the end of a life. I won't argue that a abortion is the end of a life, or prevention thereof. My only stance is that is that I can't side with either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice becasue both platforms have severe problems. Killing a person in jail doesn't change anything, and for that, I don't trust our sentancing system. I stand by the statement that you can't be Pro-Life and Pro-War or Pro-Death. I don't like Abortion, but the rational part of me can't argue for legal change. My stance is that if you have to then it must be done in a respectable timeline. I.e. - Real quick.

0 Replies

For all those who have solid opinions, I would ask if they actually know anyone who had to make that choice. I have, and I saw how hard it was for them. I can't judge them, and I don't believe anyone else should condesend upon them.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
I have to agree with Foxfyre. To try to tie the two issues in any manner, or to try to justify abortion based on one's perception of the death penalty makes no sense.

If you are against the death penalty for those guilty of heinous crimes, how could you be for the death penalty for the unborn who are innocent of any crime?
[CODE]

What doesn't make sense? It's the end of a life. I won't argue that a abortion is the end of a life, or prevention thereof. My only stance is that is that I can't side with either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice becasue both platforms have severe problems. Killing a person in jail doesn't change anything, and for that, I don't trust our sentancing system. I stand by the statement that you can't be Pro-Life and Pro-War or Pro-Death. I don't like Abortion, but the rational part of me can't argue for legal change. My stance is that if you have to then it must be done in a respectable timeline. I.e. - Real quick.

Why would it not be rational to protect innocent life if it is rational to oppose the death penalty?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

For all those who have solid opinions, I would ask if they actually know anyone who had to make that choice. I have, and I saw how hard it was for them. I can't judge them, and I don't believe anyone else should condesend upon them.

clap clap clap.

NM even knowing someone who had to make that choice.
How about being the one in the position to make that choice: and having others judge you, limit your exposure to the options, and generally act like condescending morons(?).

The 'arguement' rages on, yet most of those fighting don't even have any business in it.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
For all those who have solid opinions, I would ask if they actually know anyone who had to make that choice. I have, and I saw how hard it was for them. I can't judge them, and I don't believe anyone else should condesend upon them.

clap clap clap.

NM even knowing someone who had to make that choice.
How about being the one in the position to make that choice: and having others judge you, limit your exposure to the options, and generally act like condescending morons(?).

The 'arguement' rages on, yet most of those fighting don't even have any business in it.

*sigh*

Do I have to point out the obvious?

For those of you opposed to capital punishment, do you actually KNOW someone personally who is on death row?

For those of you opposed to slavery (everyone I hope!), do you actually KNOW someone personally who has been a slave?

And so on.

This 'well you have no personal experience with it , so your opinion doesn't mean beans' type of argument is so lame, I can't believe you wouldn't think this thru.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know