| Author |
Message |
    
Doberman23
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 12:25 am: | 
|
ABORTION
are you for it or are you against it? i am torn, i am for the pills plan-b (morning after),1 month pill (ru-486), and abortion to save the mother's life or if she is a victim of rape ... but i don't know about agreeing with the process beyond those i mentioned.
then again i'm a guy, what the hell do i look like telling a woman that they have to have a kid? also i am also not that much into helping other people out when i think they could've prevented themselves from getting into bad situations. and adoption has never even entered my mind, so i guess i kind of never paid the situation much attention.
if you look at the fetus as a baby as opposed to as a thing (like a tumor) then you have to say damn! there are a lot of black babies getting killed. i know a lot of people shouldn't be having kids but man the abortion rate for black women is over 30% for american women. not to mention everyone knows what the hell can happen when you have sex ... and why should the baby get wacked because you where careless?
anyways i was just thinking about that when i was reading the issues of these candidates. what do you think? |
Sabiana
Veteran Poster
Username: Sabiana
Post Number: 224
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 01:40 am: |
|
I'm Pro-Choice. Not everyone has the same moral/or same mind towards abortion. Would I have it? No. If I'm going to have sex, I should be equally prepared to have a child. (Which could be complicated.) But just because I would not have an abortion does not mean everyone else should not have an abortion either, however. |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 2960
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 05:56 am: |
|
I'm not sold either way but I do believe the government has absolutely no fukcing business in this area of personal decision making. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9915
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 07:21 am: |
|
I generally support a woman's right to abort (though I also think we might all burn in hell for allowing it). I think if men shared EQUALLY in all the responsibilities and hazards of childbirth I might be much more opposed to abortion.
And I believe parents of minors and husbands should have the right to be notified that their children and wives have aborted. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11519
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 12:22 pm: |
|
I am pro-choice. I believe an abortion is a private matter involving "a woman her doctor and her god." |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 6296
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 02:30 pm: |
|
I would never force anybody to have an abortion--but I think that a woman's decision to have one is none of my business.
I do not think it is a decision that any woman undertakes lightly--nobody gets pregnant so they can have an abortion.
These days nobody needs to get pregnant unless they want to. We men have to take the lead in making sure that no unwanted pregnancies occur--
it used to kill me when my partners would come to me grousing that their gal or wife had gotten pregnant on 'em
If you didn't want them to get pregnant why were you having unprotected sex with them, then? |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 25
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 02:59 pm: |
|
My 9 y.o. keeps asking me to explain a bumper sticker on a parked car that we pass nearly every day in our neighborhood: "I'm Pro-Choice AND I Pray."
I tell her that I will, in a few years. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9921
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 03:40 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Do me a solid and share that explanation with me. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9924
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 03:59 pm: |
|
Chris,
We all know the lure of warm, wet cQQchie. But I agree men MUST take more responsibility over preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD's via using condoms and other pregnancy and STD prevention methods. Because even though its that woman's body it's also YOUR kid, your FUTURE that's being killed, expectorated and discarded (like an unwanted bowel movement). |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 26
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 12:09 am: |
|
ABM:
Do you mean the basic explanation (how one can pray and be pro-choice), or how one tailors it for a young mind? |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 6311
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 11:26 am: |
|
Because even though its that woman's body it's also YOUR kid, your FUTURE that's being killed, expectorated and discarded (like an unwanted bowel movement).
(Then YOU should carry that mf to term.
Let me quote George Clinton on this--"Spit don't make babies" |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9926
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 03:09 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
I think what I'm saying is there is almost no PLAUSIBLE Pro-choice argument that I can divine, especially with respect to one that INCLUDES believing in GOD.
And I say that as someone who SUPPORTS a woman's right to choose.
Chris,
Chrishayden: "Then YOU should carry that mf to term."
Are saying the child only belongs to the person who carries and gives birth to it? If so, why do we require men to help financially support it after it has been born? |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 2976
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 04:06 am: |
|
"And I say that as someone who SUPPORTS a woman's right to choose."
End of subject..........
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11544
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 12:34 pm: |
|
In order to induce guilt, some people always want to inject God into the abortion debate. Do they ever ask themselves why God lets all of the tragedies and disasters happen that take a toll on human life? The religious community of god-fearing folks always attribute these occurrences to God's will. Maybe a young girl impregnanted by her father is doing God's will when she has an abortion. Or maybe an affluent young woman who doesn't have her own life together is doing God's will by delaying motherhood.
All organisms are a form of life so pro-lifers should remember this the next time they swat a mosquito. They should also stop injecting themselves into people's personal lives, imposing their "morals" on others and should, instead, start focusing their concern on all of the needy neglected children shunted through the ranks of DCFS. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 28
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 04:55 pm: |
|
ABM wrote:
I think what I'm saying is there is almost no PLAUSIBLE Pro-choice argument that I can divine, especially with respect to one that INCLUDES believing in GOD.
And I say that as someone who SUPPORTS a woman's right to choose.
ABM, are you saying that you feel that your pro-choice argument is implausible? That you don't believe in God? It sounds to me that you are pro-choice. Or, do you distinguish between being "pro-choice" and "supporting a woman's right to choose?"
That said, the bumper sticker reads, "I'm pro-choice and I PRAY"--not "believe in God." Folk could be praying to trees for all we know. :-)
People's views of God and religion and their interpretations of religious texts vary, so I'm not surprised that people who pray run the spectrum of beliefs about abortion.
|
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 29
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 05:02 pm: |
|
Cynique wrote:
All organisms are a form of life so pro-lifers should remember this the next time they swat a mosquito. They should also stop injecting themselves into people's personal lives, imposing their "morals" on others and should, instead, start focusing their concern on all of the needy neglected children shunted through the ranks of DCFS.
Brings to mind this article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/17/q_and_a_with_jim_wal lis/
Key quote for me:
WALLIS: This new evangelical agenda is not one issue, it's broader and deeper. It's inclusive of poverty...What ties it all together is the defense of the vulnerable. Let's not pit unborn children against poor children -- they're both in the category of the vulnerable, and Jesus calls us to defend the vulnerable. I think we've got to embrace a full range of concerns. For example, I'm going to press really hard the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, to make abortion reduction a Democratic Party plank in this election year. The extremes on both sides don't like that, but most Americans are in that middle place: they don't like abortion -- the abortion rate's too high; but they don't want to criminalize a difficult and often desperate choice.
And, Cynique, your city in particular is abysmal when it comes to the child welfare system. I've been researching for an article and learned that it's so bad, some black Chicago parents brought a class action lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Child Services (or whatever it's called), claiming racial discrimination. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9929
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 05:33 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty: "ABM, are you saying that you feel that your pro-choice argument is implausible?"
Yes. I believe it is. Because I cannot see a rational reason for why one human being should be free to kill another innocent person. And I believe life starts at conception. So, to me, permitting abortion is a socio-political compromise. It is NOT something I consider to right or just.
Ferociouskitty: "Or, do you distinguish between being "pro-choice" and "supporting a woman's right to choose?""
I believe you can interpret from my answer above that I'm much more the latter than I am the former. Again, I consider abortion to be a socio-political concession. And I make that concession PRIMARILY be because women bear MOST of the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. If men bore the same level and types of burdens that women did I'd likely be DEVOUTLY and ACTIVELY pro-life.
I agree foks are able and likely to believe of GOD what they will. But I'd like to see some part of the Bible that rationalizes and reconciles a mother killing her own innocent child. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 32
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 06:00 pm: |
|
ABM, thanks for clarifying about seeing the pro-choice position as a concession. Got it. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11546
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 06:01 pm: |
|
Yes, FK, things are bad for mistreated and abandoned children in Chicago, not to mention the frequency of babies being killed by their parents after they are born.
Abortion invariable boils down to semantics. Where in the bible which is full of murder and incest and vengefulness and snake worship does it say that a woman cannot interrupt a pregnancy? All of this self-righteous drivel about killing a child is selective rhetoric no more authentic than the language which describes abortion as the expelling an inviable embryo. Using the bible to justify one's arguments is a slippery slope, especially since to do so is to force your views on people who may not be religious. And since religion is based on blind faith who is to say what religious people believe is infallible? And to think that Man knows what "God" thinks is really presumptuous. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9935
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 06:27 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
You're welcome.  |
Doberman23
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 07:48 pm: |
|
cyniue do you feel that when a pregnant woman is killed that the murder should be a double homicide or just one murder?
or lets say someone kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused her to miscarry, is that just assault or assault plus murder? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11557
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 08:12 pm: |
|
Well if the fetus isn't breathing, then how can it be killed? I think the law is flexible on this issue. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9939
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 08:25 pm: |
|
Dobe,
If someone willfully causes a woman to involunatarily miscarry, it's murder. But if the woman decides to aborts herself, it's fine.
WTF? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11559
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 09:12 pm: |
|
99 percent of abortions occur in the first trimester of a pregnancy, Dobes. So if a murdered pregnant woman is killed, whether or not the fetus she is carrying is full term comes into play.
The law is very vague and differs from state to state when it comes to the question of a fetus' "personhood", a term which has to do with whether or not it's viable enough to survive outside the the womb.
Also figuring into the debate is that if a fetus is a person, then can it be claimed as a dependent on your income tax. No.
And for those so concerned about this issue, I guess if a woman doesn't get her egg fertilized and her womb expels it after ovulating, then she and her tampon could be guilty of murdering a potential life.  |
Doberman23
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 09:17 pm: |
|
lol! |
Doberman23
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 09:25 pm: |
|
good one on the tax income, i am just trying to see how people viewed the subject. i am thinking that after a month or so and the fetus/baby starts taking human form with the arms, legs, so on and so forth then the fetus should be considered a baby. and yes i know some people are born without all the parts they are supposed to have, those people you should be allowed to abort or murder (jk). seriously though, i think that after 2 months it should be considered to be somewhat illegal, especially with the other options i initially posted. with exceptions that i initially posted. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11562
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Bottom line is that abortion is a personal decision that a woman, by law, can opt for for whatever reason she chooses.
A fetus doesn't start to develop limbs until after the first trimester, which is pass the time that the greatest number of them occur.
People like ABM who claim to be pro-choice are full of it. What they are really "pro" about is what their choice would be. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9944
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 02:16 pm: |
|
Dobe,
Why should the age of fetus matter with respect to whether or not it has its own individual right to live? And I find it ironic hypocritical how casually we'll kill a fetus in one breath yet erect myriad extra laws and social programming and engineering after a child is born in another.
And don't feed me the "right to do with what she wants to do with her body" bvllsh*t. Because if that were a valid criteria for abortion we would NOT have laws against prostitition, recreation drug use and suicide. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2668
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 02:47 pm: |
|
Why should the age of fetus matter with respect to whether or not it has its own individual right to live?
What about cryopreserved embryos? Some would say they have just as much potential for human life as fetuses, except they are at an earlier developmental stage (e.g., "age") and in a fertility freezer instead of inside a woman's body. Custody suits have been filed on behalf of such entities, clinics have been sued for mistakenly destroying them. There was even a case of some nuns in (I think) Italy who tried to have some embryos implanted in them to be carried to term as an alternative to disposal/research use... |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2669
Registered: 01-2005
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 02:59 pm: |
|
if that were a valid criteria for abortion we would NOT have laws against...
ABM, IMO this presumes that we can make arguments from an ethical system on the basis of a cohesive, internally consistent legal system. However, our legal system is neither cohesive nor internally consistent, which is partly why mechanisms exist to change laws that are deemed out of sync with each other, and with current social realities.
For the record, I am not picking on you. I personally find the abortion "debate" interesting from a rhetorical standpoint. Personally I believe both ethical/moral and rhetorical/semantic arguments are a waste of time for actually changing hearts and minds. Folks believe what they believe, and most are pretty ambivalent and not at the far end of either side.
Though I consider myself "Pro-Choice" I feel that scientific arguments will (continue to) undermine a "Choice" position. (For example, with technology making the point of "viability" occur earlier and earlier, or research on fetal pain.) By the same token, I think pragmatic arguments will always undermine the "Life" position. As long as we have our current social and economic realities, girls and women will continue to seek to terminate pregnancies. The question then, IMO, is whether such operations will be legal/safe/available or not. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11572
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 05:33 pm: |
|
I agree. Yvette.
But in response to ABM's specious arguments, how about this one: if the government can't tell a woman she cannot have a baby, then it can't tell a woman, she has to have one.
It's also about the question of rights; does an unborn unbreathing entity have "rights" that take precedent over the rights of its "host"??? Do the rights of a fetus take precedent over the rights of living children who need the attention of their mother to be less divided? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9946
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 08:42 pm: |
|
Yvettep: ABM, IMO this presumes that we can make arguments from an ethical system on the basis of a cohesive, internally consistent legal system. However, our legal system is neither cohesive nor internally consistent, which is partly why mechanisms exist to change laws that are deemed out of sync with each other, and with current social realities.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Yes, Abortion is legal. But the argument I've been making along is just because it's legal does NOT mean there is necessarily fair, righteous and just justification for it.
You know, sorta like how slavery was once...legal.
And I'm not trying to change any one's mind. I'm just explaining where I see the flaws that buttress the pro-choice position. Because, really, there is no rational argument for supporting a woman being able to kill a child before it's born yet deny her such afterwards.
We've contorted logic and science to make and support a political position that we all, for now at least, tenuously abide. I say for now because we do have 2 conservatives on the Supreme Court who are salivating at the prospects of taking down Roe v. Wade. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2671
Registered: 01-2005
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 09:52 pm: |
|
ABM, the point is that one can give "privacy" and "right to do with one's body as one wishes" as an argument for abortion even though these underlying principles do not come into play in making prostitution or euthanasia legal. The laws (and underlying principles) in these cases are not consistent. Much of our legal system is inconsistent.
Again, I go back to the "age" issue that D23 is wrestling with as an interesting one. At one point are we willing to grant tissue human qualities or "human potential" qualities? At birth? Once the tissue can feel pain? Once the tissue has all of the genetic tissue to be a fully formed human?
The constitutional argument specific to Roe is also interesting. An overlooked point made by some is that the process in which abortion was legalized/de-criminalized in this country was not, itself, a legal process. I do not know enough about constitutional law to offer a good opinion on that, but it is interesting.
In the end, none of this will change the pragmatic point that I believe to be true: That there are realities in this country that will result in girls/women seeking pregnancy termination, regardless of its legality. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 40
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:04 am: |
|
ABM: Because if that were a valid criteria for abortion we would NOT have laws against prostitition, recreation drug use and suicide.
Wait...suicide is illegal?
*researching*
Well, yes and no:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11574
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:15 am: |
|
Pro-choice, my eye. Pro-lifers like ABM just cannot get past couching their objections to abortion in language that cast them as rescuers of helpless victims. In reality, these meddlers want to dehumanize motherhood and turn it into a punishment instead of a privilege. Plus, their concern for the unborn dissipates as soon as birth takes place.
They also make flawed selective judgments. They will make exceptions in the case of rape or incest, as if the circumstances of conception determine whether one fetus has more of a right to survive than another.
In short, they want to dictate the course of other people's lives - they want to play God.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9949
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:35 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Suicide is MURDER. And, to my knowledge at least, Murder is ILLEGAL in EVERY state of America.
Yvettep,
I generally am against growing embryos and fetuses SOLELY for medical research. I really don't give a dayam WTF stage of development they're in. That there is some flatout Dr. Frankstein type sh*t we need to stay the hell away from doing.
We're really entering a slippery slope here where foks may (if they secretly aren't already) start making the kinds of decisions about OUR rights to live that we're making about unborn children.
Roe v. Wade turns on this fallacious notion of when and whether or not a fetus can survive outside of a mother's womb. It was a POLITICAL decision. It was NOT, necessarily, Constitutionally or Scientifically justifiable one. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 41
Registered: 02-2008
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:52 am: |
|
ABM: Suicide is MURDER. And, to my knowledge at least, Murder is ILLEGAL in EVERY state of America.
No, ABM. Suicide is killing.
From dictionary.com:
Murder: 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
emphasis mine
Society, in making laws, decides which forms of killing are murder. Therefore, unless suicide is specifically deemed illegal, it is not murder.
Similarly, it is accurate to say that one may believe that abortion is killing another human being, but as long as Roe stands, it's not murder, in this country, under certain conditions.
A friend of mine who is ardently pro-life, tried to discuss this with other pro-lifers. Her point was this: When trying to dialogue with people about the issue, you lose pro-choice folks with "Abortion is murder!" because, first and foremost, it's not an accurate statement.
Needless to say her head was called for on a platter. No matter how passionate and dedicated she was in helping women to explore alternatives to abortion. Folk had their script--Abortion is murder!--and they were sticking to it.
If the goal is to discourage a woman who is seriously considering having an abortion from having one, the "abortion is murder" argument is one of the least effective, in my experience with counseling such women many moons ago. For most women (again, in my experience) that's one of the first thoughts/fears they have on their own, before they seek counsleing, and by the time they show up at an abortion clinic, with someone screaming that and shoving a grotesque placard in their faces--they've moved on to other more practical considerations...like, How can I possibly care for this child? It is addressing people's felt, material, practical needs that matters most.
All that to say...my friend was all about addressing women's concerns and felt needs, but sadly, for the extremists nothing short of "Abortion is murder!" would suffice. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9950
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 01:12 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Please present to me the American states that permit people to kill themselves.
And I've not contradicated the legality of Abortion. I've questioned the basis from which it was made legal. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9951
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 01:13 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
And, you know, the Abolitionist were often called "extremist". |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9952
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 4 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 01:18 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
I am going to add a caveat to the question of the legality of Abortion in that I've yet to divine where U.S. Constitution supports American citizens killing their children. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 43
Registered: 02-2008
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 06:52 am: |
|
ABM: Please present to me the American states that permit people to kill themselves.
Well, if you succeed in killing yourself, you really don't need permission, do you?
As for states which criminalize attempted suicide:
"In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. "
This is from the link I posted earlier in this thread. So presumably, the states other than those six don't still consider attempted suicide a crime.
And I've not contradicated the legality of Abortion. I've questioned the basis from which it was made legal.
And I never said you did. In response to your suicide=murder, I presented an anecdote relevant to the "Abortion is murder!" discussion, about specific people that I know of. If the shoe doesn't fit...
I believe abortion is killing. I also know that telling a woman that abortion is murder isn't as likely to convince her to choose to carry her baby to term, as some other factors. So, to me, anyone who is stuck on "Abortion is murder!" really isn't concerned about helping women or unborn children, because that's not the attitude, in my experience, that is most effective in saving lives. So, to persist with it, is to me, an extremist position.
And, you know, the Abolitionist were often called "extremist".
And, you know, this doesn't stop terrorists or people like Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist Church or people who bomb abortion clinics from being extremists. The fact that abolitionists were called 'extremist' doesn't redeem the word or the behavior it describes.
I am going to add a caveat to the question of the legality of Abortion in that I've yet to divine where U.S. Constitution supports American citizens killing their children.
You can read about the basis for Roe here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/aborvw.htm
In particular:
The basis of the Roe v. Wade decision:
The Supreme Court based its abortion access decision on the right of personal privacy which the court finds implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice and liberty" to all citizens. 2 The Supreme Court has determined that the due process clause implies that governments cannot pass legislation that intrudes too deeply into the personal life of its citizens. There are limits to the ability of states to control personal behavior.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (The due process clause is emphasized) 3
Under this clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has "...recognized such rights and the right to an early abortion, the right to use contraceptives, [and] the right to medical treatment..." 3 For opposite-sex couples, the court has also recognized "...the right to marry." 3 In mid-2003, the court also based its Lawrence v. Texas ruling on the right to privacy. That decision gave heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual adults the right to engage in private consensual sexual activities, even if society generally disapproved of the behavior.
Mr. Justice Stewart referred to the Fourteen Amendment when he issued a concurring statement in Roe v. Wade. He wrote, in part: "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas." |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 44
Registered: 02-2008
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 06:58 am: |
|
To ABM's point and somewhat to the question Yvette raised about the process of how abortion was legalized:
Justice Antonin Scalia states that abortion right not in constitution:
"Justice Scalia debated with Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on a one-hour television program on 2006-OCT-15. Justice Scalia said that unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions in areas where the U.S. Constitution is silent. He said that liberal judges in the past had established new political rights, such as abortion access. He warned:
"Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach. ... On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through [our elected] representatives or a constitutional amendment."
He generally disagrees with the stands taken by the ACLU. However, he noted cases where he has agreed. These include rulings upholding the right of a citizen to burn the flag, and a 2004 decision that that a U.S. citizen seized in Afghanistan during wartime could challenge his detention as an enemy combatant in U.S. courts."
Again from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/aborvw.htm |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2677
Registered: 01-2005
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 10:46 am: |
|
I generally am against growing embryos and fetuses SOLELY for medical research.
At least here in the US, all of the embryos I am talking about were "left over" from fertility treatments. An individual or couple can have dozens of early-stage embryos preserved. Even if they return in a couple of years to use a few to try to conceive again, and even if they donate some to other infertile couples, there still may be some left over.
A vexing ethical question has been: what to do with them? Store them indefinitely? Discard them? Or, use them for research?
Many folks--even those who have worked hard and paid out much $$--are loathe to see their unused embryos go to waste and would rather some use be made for them, particularly if it helps scientists discover cures for disease (including infertility). Others are just ambivalent and end up deciding nothing. So they sit. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2678
Registered: 01-2005
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 10:49 am: |
|
@ FK: Girl I had forgotten the extent to which you are the 'Net research queen... LOL But yeah, that is what I was referring to. The less-talked about legal challenge does not have to do with a definition of "child/baby/human" or "murder" but has to do with the process, and what constitutional precedents were invoked. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9955
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 01:50 pm: |
|
I should have said attempting suicide is illegal. I mean, hell, you can’t try and convict a dead person. But I think I’m going to have to see something more than you’ve present to believe MOST American states have no laws against attempting suicide.
I have not been debating which techniques are most persuasive for blunting abortion. Moreover, I believe foks will get abortions regardless of whether or not such is legal. But just because foks will do something doesn’t mean our laws should sanction or enable their doing such.
If you’re against abortion and view it to be the murder (killing or whatever you want to call it) of nearly 2 million innocent children per year you can make an argument for bombing abortion clinics. I personally would NOT engage in such. But I can see an argument that supports doing that.
Note within what you present about Roe v. Wade the following:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". I think without due process of law is the pivotal phrase there that supports states having authority that the Supreme Court has (perhaps, unconstitutionally) usurped via Roe v. Wade.
Moreover, if one followed the argument for Roe v. Wade to its logical championing of one’s right to "life, liberty, or property" conclusion one can argue that citizens can do WHATEVER they want to without the states being able to do a dayam thing about it. This would flout prohibitions of prostitution, underage drinking, pedophilia, incest, child pornography, recreation drug sales & use and myriad other acts that we as a society and culture deem undesirable.
(Btw: I believe, with some limitations similar to those imposed on smoking and alcohol consumption, prostitution and recreation drug use should be legal.)
I don’t quite follow how you’re relating Abortion to gay marriage. But, if it means anything, I fully support homosexuals being allowed to marry.
PS: It’s a PLEASURE having you here again, babe. You (like our friend ‘The Good Ship Yvettep’) are a most welcome reprieve of much of what’s been going down around here the last year or so. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2683
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 02:09 pm: |
|
our friend ‘The Good Ship Yvettep’
S'that like "The Good Ship Lollipop"? Whatchu tryna say, Willis?! LOL |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9958
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 02:38 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
I was (mostly) a compliment, babe.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2687
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Oh, OK. (I think!) |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 55
Registered: 02-2008
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 03:23 pm: |
|
But I think I’m going to have to see something more than you’ve present to believe MOST American states have no laws against attempting suicide.
Well, if the link below doesn't suffice, perhaps you can provide proof that MOST states have laws criminalizing attempted suicide?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suicide
I have not been debating which techniques are most persuasive for blunting abortion.
And I've not been debating you on this point. Again, I wrote in response to particular mindset. If that is not your mindset, then what I've said is not applicable to your or your position.
Moreover, I believe foks will get abortions regardless of whether or not such is legal. But just because foks will do something doesn’t mean our laws should sanction or enable their doing such.
Agreed. And, I believe it's important to consider what *will* help reduce the number of abortions. Criminalization of the procedure will not decrease the demand, imo.
If you’re against abortion and view it to be the murder (killing or whatever you want to call it) of nearly 2 million innocent children per year you can make an argument for bombing abortion clinics. I personally would NOT engage in such. But I can see an argument that supports doing that.
And would that be a "plausible" argument, in your opinion? Somehow more plausible than someone believing in God, but also being pro-choice? ;-)
Note within what you present about Roe v. Wade the following:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". I think without due process of law is the pivotal phrase there that supports states having authority that the Supreme Court has (perhaps, unconstitutionally) usurped via Roe v. Wade.
Note that I did not post that in support of Roe. I posted it as explanation for how the Justices justified their ruling. I agree with Scalia (can't believe I just said that!) that they process for arriving at that ruling was slippery which makes the Roe victory a tenuous one.
To me, Roe is practically beside the point if, whether legal or illegal, women are going to continue seek abortions. Obviously abortions are safer if they are legal, but beyond that, to the question of reducing demand for abortions--that is a matter that transcends legalities.
That said, I do wonder what would happen if Scalia's recommendation was taken and the issue somehow wound up before Congress as a proposed federal law or constitutional amendment.
I don’t quite follow how you’re relating Abortion to gay marriage.
Where did I say anything about gay marriage? LOL, why do I keep getting the sense that you are debating someone else, and not me???!!!
PS: It’s a PLEASURE having you here again, babe. You (like our friend ‘The Good Ship Yvettep’) are a most welcome reprieve of much of what’s been going down around here the last year or so. :-)T
Awwwwwww. Well, I missed you guys and this forum, but certainly not the vitriol (that's a popular word around these parts!) and the nonsense. Thanks for the dialogue. |
|
Email This Page