Abortion.What do you think about it?

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Your questions here really do not matter to me. Very simply - my biggest concern for a fetus, 5-month old "preemie", infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, elderly person is the right to live. Wink

On who's authority is life a 'right', might I ask?

It has been considered so in the US for a long time. Read the Declaration of Independence.

Your view is so far out of the mainstream that there are few that will take it seriously.

I know that's how you like it, so don't let us hear you complain if someone is about to take any of your 'rights' away or violate them in any way, since you've told us that you have none. By your own admission, you only have the 'rights' that the rest of us are willing to allow you.

0 Replies

RL- You have alzheimers. I used to just think you were a twat, now I just feel compassion for you.

I in no way compared the two. I clearly illustrated that rights are abitrarily assigned in time.

If you aren't going to read my entire post don't quote me. To give an anology: It's like I say we eat both apples and oranges with our mouth and then your reply is how ridiculous it is that I'm comparing the two fruits. For the sake of just me (someone who doesn't agree with you at all, but still takes the time to address your points.) use your brain; read what I write. If you want to counter my point, counter my point, don't counter something that isn't my point. This is what I was talking about with your credibility a many post previous in regausrds to your credibility.

As for you just posting the same question over and over, you rarely ever answer counter points, and you've been answered several times.

Get a clue.

0 Replies

Don't tell me you weren't comparing these when you certainly were. You were trying to make a case for the right to life being an arbitrarily assigned right, as is the right to drive.

If you believe the right to life is an arbitrary right, then would anything be wrong with changing the point at which the right to life is protected? Shouldn't be if it's just a matter of opinion.

So , how about instead of the right to life being protected from birth as it is now, we change it to protect the right to life from age 15 and up?

Any moral problem with that? It's just an arbitrary assignment of rights, right?

0 Replies

By the way. How is it do you think we aqcuirred rights if not arbitrarily? Did human cavemen have the same rights we did? Did they have the same rights to life?

Hmmmmmm....?

When in human history did we obtain the right to life? Where does being human have anything to do with it?

hmmmmmm....!

Perhaps, and this is crazy (like right-wing crazy) as our cultures evovled we created rights; that rights themselves are a human creation. We decide! We decide what rights exist! Such liberation! But wait, some people claim that they have alwasy existed, and that they even predate mankind!

Incredulous!

In a LARGE part of our culture, life rights begin at birth and they are inherited from the mother/parents. You represent a part of our culture that is also LARGE, you believe that life begins at conception.

Q: What happens when cultures collide?
A: A stupid webfight in a thread.

No. but seriously, what happens is that one culture believes that the only way to bring its agenda to fruition is by law. Take our laws and say what values are acceptable, and make them yours, then enforce them --> fascism.

I'm sure after reading this, you'd like to ramble on about how pathetic it is that I compared apples and oranges. well, I represent apples, and you represent oranges. You keep trying to argue which of us is fruit, and won't allow for a comparisson.

You're going to have todo better than this.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Don't tell me you weren't comparing these when you certainly were. You were trying to make a case for the right to life being an arbitrarily assigned right, as is the right to drive.

If you believe the right to life is an arbitrary right, then would anything be wrong with changing the point at which the right to life is protected? Shouldn't be if it's just a matter of opinion.

So , how about instead of the right to life being protected from birth as it is now, we change it to protect the right to life from age 15 and up?

Any moral problem with that? It's just an arbitrary assignment of rights, right?

I'm not saying that the tiems choosen for rights are wrong. I support most of them (I'd lower drinking age, raise driving age.). I believe they are assigned for a reason. Arbitrary, not random, not meaningless. I support life rights at birth. I believe in the reasons for this date more than any other reasons presented.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your view is so far out of the mainstream that there are few that will take it seriously.

This coming from a guy that thinks man walked with t-rex 6000 years ago when the earth was magically poofed into existance.
lolzers.

0 Replies

Quote:

On who's authority is life a 'right', might I ask?

If you want to start a thread about this subject then do so, it might be interesting. In the meantime though - please stay on subject. I'm tired of chasing incidental and mostly meaningless sidebars.

0 Replies

Deist TKO:

Baddog1 - You totally have that right. You can ignore my questions, but they'll still be here. If you're not looking for input then you can't really contribute to a discussion. Why join a forum topic if you don't wish to discuss these things?

Because I tire of the same ole things

If the only questions that "matter" to you are the ones you find validating, then you can't claim an objective stance.

I don't claim an objective stance on this! I feel the way I do about it - as do you. Neither of us are objective about it!

I have the same concerns as you do, honest. But I uphold my beliefs in my choices, not through the legal grid iron. Go ahead and be concerned for

your fetus,
your 5-month-old "preemie"
your infant,
your toddler,
your child,
your teen,
your adults (yourself)
your elders (your parents)

get the best care you can, provide the life that you best can, be the person you want to be.

Now, let others be as they are. It's not your problem or your bussiness. And if you wish to make it your bussiness, you'd better qualify how it pertains to you first.

Then why have a democracy? Laws? Why be concerned with murder, rape, political affiliation, taxes? If it's not my problem - then it's not my business - right? Where do you draw the line on that? Do you vote? Would you care if I killed your parent(s)? Your child? The Pope? Why not simply steal whatever I want?

I won't go as far as Doktor S and ask how we are entitled to life, but I'll say that we inherit that right by other's choices. Keeping a child is just as much of a choice. Just getting pregnanat and forcing a baby out of your womb doesn't give it life. There are several choices that have to be made.

And choosing to conceive a child (create life) is a choice. (In my estimation - conception is one of the most responsible choices we can make as a human-being.) You convey this strong message of choice -what is your position is on consequences of choice (good or bad)?

Choices.

Consequences.

0 Replies

Baddog1 - My stance is very objective. I have certainly arrived her after concidering both sides of this arguement. I am not so far left that I am subjective, I am very moderate on this issue. If because I can back up why I'm not more right on this isssue with reason, it doesn't make my stance any more left.

I'd hope you'd strive to be more objective, especially if you are wanting your way to become law, because laws should be objective. What doesn't bend, breaks.

As for...

Then why have a democracy? Laws? Why be concerned with murder, rape, political affiliation, taxes? If it's not my problem - then it's not my business - right? Where do you draw the line on that? Do you vote? Would you care if I killed your parent(s)? Your child? The Pope? Why not simply steal whatever I want?

you make a great case to uphold laws on theft, rape and murder but you still can't tell me how some girl next door getting an abortion is affecting you. As for where the line is drawn, it already is. Adovcates for making abortion illegal are the ones trying to re-draw the line.

as for choosing to conceive, that's great if you choose to do so. I have my own opinions about someone who would actively plan a pregnacy and then cancel it. however I see this as a incredibly finite sample of the people who get abortions. Most abortions (I would assume) come from unwanted pregnacies, i.e. - people choosing to not concieve. They become pregnant one of two ways:

1) negligence; no sexual health information or simply irresponcible behaivor.

or

2) Failure of birth control.

The first case is what I see you illustrating a big problem with, and wanting consequences etc. I just don't believe that having a baby and raising a child should be a means to facilitate any consequence. this is usually the case where I advocate for adoption. Either choice can be made, and either can be wrong. The government shouldn't police this.

The second case is one where i definitely think a woman/couple should be able to choose. I still adovcate adoption, but I'm more understanding of someone's choice to abort.

P.s. - Tiring of the same ole things is by no hand a solid reason to ignore my questions.

0 Replies

I think if Barbara Bush had gone to the doctor we wouldn't be in this pickle.

http://www.abde.net/images/unmedia/bush_halo.jpg

0 Replies

Deist TKO:

Baddog1 - My stance is very objective. I have certainly arrived her after concidering both sides of this arguement. I am not so far left that I am subjective, I am very moderate on this issue. If because I can back up why I'm not more right on this isssue with reason, it doesn't make my stance any more left.

"Objectivity" as described by Merriam Webster: "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations".

I'd hope you'd strive to be more objective, especially if you are wanting your way to become law, because laws should be objective. What doesn't bend, breaks.

Laws should be objective - I agree; however they rarely are. Consider Roe v. Wade! Objective? I think not. How about divorce law? Objective? No way. I have no desire to get off-topic here, just showing that objectivity is rarely utilized, but often claimed.

As for...

Then why have a democracy? Laws? Why be concerned with murder, rape, political affiliation, taxes? If it's not my problem - then it's not my business - right? Where do you draw the line on that? Do you vote? Would you care if I killed your parent(s)? Your child? The Pope? Why not simply steal whatever I want?

you make a great case to uphold laws on theft, rape and murder but you still can't tell me how some girl next door getting an abortion is affecting you. As for where the line is drawn, it already is. Adovcates for making abortion illegal are the ones trying to re-draw the line.

You continue trying to drag me into the personal issue of how does abortion affect me. I've provided my position on this by explanation and personal history and it's still not enough for you! Once again: I cannot change the law - and I am not trying to! I am in hopes that my thoughts may (in some way) help a woman/couple consider (what I perceive as) the bigger picture in life and humanity. Nothing more/nothing less!

as for choosing to conceive, that's great if you choose to do so. I have my own opinions about someone who would actively plan a pregnacy and then cancel it. however I see this as a incredibly finite sample of the people who get abortions. Most abortions (I would assume) come from unwanted pregnacies, i.e. - people choosing to not concieve. They become pregnant one of two ways:

1) negligence; no sexual health information or simply irresponcible behaivor.

or

2) Failure of birth control.

The first case is what I see you illustrating a big problem with, and wanting consequences etc. I just don't believe that having a baby and raising a child should be a means to facilitate any consequence. this is usually the case where I advocate for adoption. Either choice can be made, and either can be wrong. The government shouldn't police this.

Please read: I have a big problem with anyone who makes the choice to have unprotected sex and is not prepared to care for the child that may be conceived. ("Caring for" could mean; adoption, or aligning their life so as to properly care for the child!) In your illustration, you're saying that these people are "negligent, seek no sexual health information, or are simply irresponsible" - yet you want to empower them with the ability to kill a fetus that they created - if they choose to do so! That is preposterous to me!

The second case is one where i definitely think a woman/couple should be able to choose. I still adovcate adoption, but I'm more understanding of someone's choice to abort.

I agree with this to a point. My point is: They should never be allowed to make this choice if their reason is for convenience! That should've been considered before they conceived! Other possible reasons that (IMHO) should be open to the possibility of abortion include: rape, possible health issue to Mom, and possible catastrophic health issue with fetus. And to be very honest; I am not totally sure where I stand on these last issues. I am only clear that "convenience" should NEVER be a reason to abort a fetus. NEVER!!!

P.s. - Tiring of the same ole things is by no hand a solid reason to ignore my questions.

OK - I will indulge you:

Name someone who wasn't both an egg and sperm?

Nobody - what does that question have to do with mine?

No one contests that we weren't all fetuses. Go ahaed and make your point, nobody needs to list the people who used to be fetuses.

It's simple inductive reasoning! No fetus - no person. Fetus - person (unless of course the fetus dies or is killed.)

Your question even impies that we are not fetuses anymore. When did we stop being a fetus?

It's man's terminology that coined fetus, infant, toddler, etc. It is my belief that all of life (from conception to the instant before death) is an evolution of life.

Should adults like us have the same rights as a fetus? Should fetuses be allowed to vote? Should a fetus have to pay taxes?

If you mean all of the same rights - of course not! If you mean living rights, then emphatically - yes!

Face it, you have to acknowledge that fetuses and developed humans, have different rights. you can't vote until you are 18, a right that is abitrarily assigned. Can't drink until you are 21, but you can drive at 16 in the USA. In other countries these ages are different. Who is right? who knows when arbitrary rights can be assigned? Our country upholds that before 18 your parents are in charge of your rights and your legal voice, and it also holds that an unborn person is under the rights of the mother.

You're giving examples of what I consider to be voluntary rights. Rights of self-choice. Ie: Just because a youth is allowed to vote at 18, doesn't mean they must. How do these voluntary rights relate to living rights? Living rights involve the right not to be harmed by another, not to be stolen from, not to be harassed

If we are humans/people/whatever at the moment of conception/fertilization, how come our birth-certificates don't document that the beginning of a person is at their conception? You can be inside a womb and your parents can even give you a name, but it's not your name until you are come out.

Not sure. What purpose would that serve? IMHO - I am fine with the current method.

Numeration. You begina at zero, not zero minus 9 months. Before that you may be developing etc, but you don't enharit any rights that your carrier doesn't give you (and this is key-->) by choice.

You don't inherit any voluntary rights until birth - however from the point of conception - you inherit living rights - because it is at that point that you are - ALIVE!

0 Replies

coluber2001 wrote:

I think if Barbara Bush had gone to the doctor we wouldn't be in this pickle.

No, we'd have the 'inventor of the Internet'.

A guy who claims that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to civilization.

A man who held a fund raiser in a Buddhist temple, made fundraising phone calls from his government financed office and said there was 'no controlling legal authority' to govern his conduct.

A man who , dating back over 20 years, made serious efforts to legislate the lyrics in popular music.

A man who couldn't even win his home state in the election of 2000. If those who know you best won't vote for you, what does that say?

The VP whose administration 'managed the economy' as the NASDAQ index lost HALF of it's value in just 1 year. Hundreds of billions in capital investment evaporated.

The VP whose administration watched as US interests were attacked by Islamic terrorists AT LEAST 4 times ( World Trade Center '93, bombing of the Khobar towers, bombing of 2 US embassies in Africa , attack on the USS Cole ) and did NOTHING substantial in response, setting the stage for 9/11.

Want more? I won't derail the thread any further, but if you want more I'll meet you in the Politics forum anytime.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Your view is so far out of the mainstream that there are few that will take it seriously.

This coming from a guy that thinks man walked with t-rex 6000 years ago when the earth was magically poofed into existance.
lolzers.

My view on creation doesn't endanger the lives of others.

Your view on who does and doesn't qualify as a human being -- who does and doesn't have a right to live -- has much more serious consequences.

Your view on human rights (or lack of same) is dangerous and extreme.

If you don't like my view on creation , you can ignore it and nobody is harmed.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

you make a great case to uphold laws on theft, rape and murder but you still can't tell me how some girl next door getting an abortion is affecting you.

So, if kidnapping of child doesn't affect me (since I'm not a child) , I shouldn't be concerned?

And if embezzlement of funds from publicly held companies doesn't affect me (if I own no stock), I shouldn't be concerned?

And if rape doesn't affect me (since I'm not a woman), I shouldn't be concerned?

Your objection on this point is really lame.

Diest TKO wrote:

As for where the line is drawn, it already is. Adovcates for making abortion illegal are the ones trying to re-draw the line.

Abortion was illegal in most states for over a hundred years.

Would your argument have been considered valid when the Court was deciding Roe v Wade?

Should they have said, 'well there's already a line drawn. It's those pro-abortion folks who are trying to change things.' -- the implication being that there should never be a change to the status quo?

Again, your objection is lame.

-------------------------------

Instead of drumming up wild objections, why don't you tell us if you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

If the unborn is not a living human being, then that settles the whole thing.

If an abortion is a medical procedure with no moral consequence, such as removing a wart or a mole, then neither I nor most pro-life folks would have any objection to it.

So why don't you settle this once and for all?

Tell us what evidence you have that the unborn is NOT a living human being.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
real life wrote:

Your view is so far out of the mainstream that there are few that will take it seriously.

This coming from a guy that thinks man walked with t-rex 6000 years ago when the earth was magically poofed into existance.
lolzers.

My view on creation doesn't endanger the lives of others.

Your view on who does and doesn't qualify as a human being -- who does and doesn't have a right to live -- has much more serious consequences.

Your view on human rights (or lack of same) is dangerous and extreme.

If you don't like my view on creation , you can ignore it and nobody is harmed.

And you aren't harmed by leaving the system as it is and allowing abortion to remain legal. You'll be fine, the sun will still raise, the gears of society will still spin. This isn't as extreme as you try and sell it.

As for meeting people in the politics forum, I'd like to see that. If your other politics are as emotional and irrational, I'd love to watch the train derail. This isn't about Bush, and his history in the making worst presidential career ever. If you would like to allign yourself with him go ahead, but chooose your allies well, they affect your credibility as well.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
real life wrote:

Your view is so far out of the mainstream that there are few that will take it seriously.

This coming from a guy that thinks man walked with t-rex 6000 years ago when the earth was magically poofed into existance.
lolzers.

My view on creation doesn't endanger the lives of others.

Your view on who does and doesn't qualify as a human being -- who does and doesn't have a right to live -- has much more serious consequences.

Your view on human rights (or lack of same) is dangerous and extreme.

If you don't like my view on creation , you can ignore it and nobody is harmed.

And you aren't harmed by leaving the system as it is and allowing abortion to remain legal. You'll be fine, the sun will still raise, the gears of society will still spin. This isn't as extreme as you try and sell it.

Why do you continually make reference to my benefit? Of course I [/i][/u]will be ok. I've[/i][/u] already been born. DUH.

Abortion kills the unborn[/i][/u].

You continually avoid the obvious.

Typical spin.

Diest TKO wrote:

As for meeting people in the politics forum, I'd like to see that. If your other politics are as emotional and irrational, I'd love to watch the train derail. This isn't about Bush, and his history in the making worst presidential career ever. If you would like to allign yourself with him go ahead, but chooose your allies well, they affect your credibility as well.

I can tell you several dozen things I don't like about Bush.

But he's BY FAR better than the zoo we would've had with the alternative.

The weak kneed type of liberal leadership that set the stage for 9/11 is a risk we cannot run again.

Liberals in this forum cannot even bring themselves to state without equivocation that terrorism, including flying planes into buildings, is inherently evil.

No, it's just a 'cultural difference', a 'subjective matter of opinion'.

Nothing is REALLY wrong, it just SEEMS SO to some who hold that opinion.

I'm an independent and I would love to see the D's put up some reasonable candidates to keep the R's in line.

But I'm continually disappointed.

And coluber's comment about wishing Bush to have been aborted is just par for the course for liberals who cannot civilly discuss politics without falling into the most extreme and bizarre convolutions from the get-go.

It's the same lack of moral compass which allows them to excuse the killing of human beings (abortion) , or else to avoid altogether discussing whether the unborn is a living human being or not.

Sound familiar?

0 Replies

Why do you guys keep this up? Does anyone think they honestly will be able to budge anyone else from their beliefs about abortion?

Since its obvious that's not going to happen -ever - the only logical conclusion is that you get some masochistic pleasure out of the highly emotional, insulting tone of the neverending back and forth.

0 Replies

Snood - You're actually 100% right. I have no intention of swaying anyone's opinion, esspecially RL. I had pretty much decided to move on to other things, but people like RL are just too entertaining to me. It's not masochism that drives me, just the desire to see what he'l post next.

I just love RL's comical portrayal of left-wing-crazies and tales of future abortionists invasions into our homes. To me the more ridiculous things I can contuinue to make him say the more satisfied I become.

Most recently I have got RL to admit that abortion doesn't affect him. Who knows what he'll say tomorrow. It's enought to drive me to continue to post.

RL - As for your redundant asking of the same question, I answered it already when I said that the begining of a person is at their birth not their conception via the birthcertificate, further, several people have answered you. you think that your question is invincible, but it has been rendered full of holes. Even if you say a fetus is a human being, you still have to assign it rights first before you can uphold them. So to "settle this once and for all" I have settled it, be satisfied.

however, being the creature of habit that you are, I'm sure you'll ask it again
and again
and again
and again
and again
and again
and again
and again
and again
and again

You are too predictable.

0 Replies

This gibberish is exactly why I stopped posting in the abortion threads.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Instead of drumming up wild objections, why don't you tell us if you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

I answered it already when I said that the begining of a person is at their birth

Making an assertion and providing medical evidence are two completely different things.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know