Abortion.What do you think about it?

I think you are perfectly within bounds to say that you don't want to date a woman who has had an abortion - something that you find repugnangt. I don't at all fault you for that.

I DO think that it is an odd criteria.

Boomer wrote-

Quote:

I think you are perfectly within bounds to say that you don't want to date a woman who has had an abortion - something that you find repugnangt. I don't at all fault you for that.

I DO think that it is an odd criteria.

It may be odd but there is a price to pay for it. The opposite view has no price to pay and thus can be suspected, at the least, of being an easy view to hold.

There is a value to purity of mind which no amount of self justification can ever overcome.

In Truffaut's lovely movie L'Homme Qui Aimait Les Femmes a character asks Bernard (the hero) why he parted company with a woman. He won't say. Then he is asked whether it was something she had said. He then agrees that was the case. Men have sensitivities too.

It certainly isn't an attempt to change your mind Frank. I am aware that there's no chance of doing that.

In Truffaut's lovely movie L'Homme Qui Aimait Les Femmes a character asks Bernard (the hero) why he parted company with a woman. He won't say. Then he is asked whether it was something she had said. He then agrees that was the case. Men have sensitivities too.

"Les jambes des femmes sont des compas qui arpentent le globe terrestre en tout sens, lui donnant son équilibre et son harmonie"

Under current legislation, a woman can have an abortion only if her life is in danger, to protect her mental or physical health, or in cases of rape, incest or foetal impairment, but cannot be performed under any circumstances after the 12th week.
...
According to official estimates, around ten thousand Portuguese women are admitted to hospitals yearly as a result of complications from illegal abortions.
In addition as many as 40,000 illegal abortions are staged in the country each year.
Latest official figures show that leagl abortion rose by 85 percent in 2004 to over thousand (thre a day) qith observers expecting this figures to rise even further in 2005.

Illegal abortions do not have the sanction of the state just like driving over the speed limit doesn't.

spendius wrote:
Illegal abortions do not have the sanction of the state just like driving over the speed limit doesn't.


Well, I don't know which countries you are referring at but this hasn't been so in Germany (and still isn't so).

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

The Supreme Court said it was THE issue

....... It has been pointed out to you that in the majority opinion, reference was made to litigants and amicii who were concerned with the "personhood" of a foetus--and that was not a topic introduced by any of the justices....

I didn't say the justices introduced the topic.

But the justices' opinion stated:

Quote:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

from http://www.roevswade.org/Decision.html

It could not be clearer.

The personhood of the fetus is THE issue (in the opinion of the court) that held the potential to furnish grounds for upholding the state abortion laws that then existed.

Are you having trouble with the word "If," "real life"--is that why you continue to assert that what is not the central point of the majority opinion is the central point. The Court did not uphold the abortion statutes of the State of Texas, the Court did not hold that there were a "personhood" of the foetus which justified the fourteenth amendment rights attributed to a foetus by the State and by amicii arguing in favor of the abortion statutes.

It apperently does not sink in with you that the Court struck down the state abortion statutes, and that they used the qualifier "if" because they did not in fact find that argument compelling.

You continue to project what you would like to believe onto a decision which makes no mention of the "personhood" of a foetus.

You're cherry-picking in the Roe versus Wade decision, just as you do when the topic is evolution.

The entire paragraph from which you have lifted the "personhood passage" comes in section IX of the Court's opinion, when the contention that a foetus may have XIVth Amendment rights is discussed. The entire paragraph, which you have not quoted in full, reads:

Quote:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here, since you seem so intent on ignoring it, let me reiterate and emphasize the Court's closing conclusion on the issue of a foetus as a "person":

On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So you need to stop attempting to peddle that horseshit that the issue of the foetus being a person is central to the Court's decision, because it clearly is not.

What a court said or what a person is within the meaning of the 14th is neither here nor there.

However, as people learn more of the unborn's medical status, they inevitably become more pro-life.

spendius wrote:

What a court said or what a person is within the meaning of the 14th is neither here nor there.

I agree, spendius that the unborn is a person whether a court recognizes it or no, whether a specific law or amendment recognizes it or no.

The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision held that a black was not a person.

The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade failed to affirm the personhood of the unborn.

What makes it relevant is that now legally the unborn can be hacked to pieces by a razor sharp scalpel, or chemically poisoned , or be partially extracted from the mother's body and have his/her skull punctured at the base with a scissors and the brains sucked out with a vacuum.

However, as people learn more of the unborn's medical status, they inevitably become more pro-life.

Support for abortion is maintained by ignorance of the medical facts.

Abortion's cheerleaders never want to discuss the medical aspects of the case, but take refuge in semantics and 'well, it's legal' (as if that had relevance to the morality).

Pathetic bullshyt.


There are no abortion cheerleaders...and most of the pro-choice folks are more than willing to discuss the "medical aspects of the case."

But folks like you with a closed mind...and an over inflated sense of their own morality...just don't listen.

Quote:

Dred Scott and Roe v Wade were legal decisions , but huge moral/ social blunders by close-minded Courts protecting close-minded societies.

Listening to a lecture on close mindedness from you is like listening to a lecture on ugliness from a wart hog.

Bullshyt.