[Kevin]

Aaah hyperbole. Most people that are against abortion, are against it being used as birth control.

You know, the reason MOST abortions take place in this country?

[Spliffdaddy]

"Yes, raped women had a choice to not get pregnant. She shouldn'tve been walking through the park or had that drink with the sleeping pill."

lol. So you're against abortions as a form of birth control if the woman wasn't raped?

Or were you trying to change the subject?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

It does not prove your point

Yes, yes it does. You made a claim, I disproved it with proof.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol. So you're against abortions as a form of birth control if the woman wasn't raped?

I don't think people should be using abortion as a form of birth control.

No

[cpt kangarooski]

Jawbone54--

The implication is that you do not have a RIGHT to commit murder.

On the other hand, you do not have a general duty to save someone's life. If someone poisoned you, and I had the antidote, and was standing right next to you, watching you die, I would have no obligation to give it to you. You have no right to make me help you. I can let you die, and I will not have broken a single law.

Women have, more or less, a similar relationship with fetuses they're carrying. They don't have to carry them. If the fetus can make it on its own, that's great. If not, there's no fundamental difference from the scenario above. They may have to go about this in a regulated way, but that's more of a minor hurdle than anything else, and has more to do with ensuring that it's done in a medically safe way.

Ultimately, of course, if medical science progresses, abortion will change from resulting in the death of the fetus to resulting in the fetus being gestated elsewhere, probably an artificial womb. This is because the right to an abortion is the right to not be pregnant, not the right to harm fetuses. Where they're connected as is presently the case, you'll be stuck having one hand in hand with the other. But this is not inevitable. Basically we'll have something like putting a child into an orphanage, but on the morning after, rather than upon birth.

Abortion is not a "medical decision," so much as a moral decision.

Maybe, but the government has no place in telling people what is and isn't moral, and enforcing morality on them. So let's not waste time with irrelevant discussions of morality. Morality is simply not a factor here.

What if I took a gun and blew my mother's brains out because she insulted me? It was a private matter. Should I be charged with murder? It's ridiculous to call abortion a private matter when a life is being terminated.

Actually, your example is what's ridiculous. The analogy you're trying to make just falls on its face. The poison one works better, IMO.

[dcmacdaddy]

Out of curiosity, why is it that some of you are making claims about the morality of abortion in a discussion on its legality? Why is the morality of the action even relevant? Why is it that you would seem, on the surface, to want government to enforce a specific viewpoint on what is or is not moral behavior. Is this true? If so, why? Why would anyone want government dictating to its citizens what is or is not moral behavior, by codifying that behavior into law?

I think kangarooski offers the perfect example of why morality should NOT be enshrined into law. Does anyone really want it to be possible for the government to punish individuals for commiting morally questionable actions? Think about the example given. It *is* legal to not save someone's life when you have the ability to do so. The government doesn't care whether your inaction was or was not moral, all it cares is if your inaction was legal. Do any of you want the government interfering in a person's ability to make such a choice by enacting punitive legislation for *not* making a choice? Seriously, think about this for a minute. . . . In such a scenario, the government would become involved in punishing in-action, in punishing making the choice to not act. Does anyone really want that? I hope not.

So, does anyone have a quick explanation why they think government should enforce morality through legislation instead of leaving morality where it usually lies, in the hands of the cultural group(s) making up the citizenry?

[Spliffdaddy]

First of all, I don't believe morality has anything to do with terminating pregnancy.

I think the unborn child has the right to life.

While some may be of the opinion that abortion is a moral dilemma - I'd suggest that murder would also have to qualify as a moral dilemma. A good case could be made that some children should not have to be born...and some murder victims needed killed.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

First of all, I don't believe morality has anything to do with terminating pregnancy.

I think the unborn child has the right to life.

Yeah, my comment wasn't directed at you. You quite clearly tell us where you stand with regard to the rights of a unborn child takng precedence over that of a parent. I disagree with you completely in regards to this stance but I can appreciate your direct, un-compromising take on the issue.


The interesting thing to me in regards to this issue of "legal or moral or both" is that people confuse legal actions with moral actions and seem to assume that if something is legal it is moral when frequently it is not. This might go a long ways towards explaining why people in this thread are advocating for a moral stance on abortion to be enshrined into law; They can't distinguish between what is moral and what is legal and how the government does (or does not) perceive and act on the two different practices.

And just for the record. I think abortion IS an amoral action. I think also that as a completely amoral act it should be completely protected by the force of law.

[Monique]

The people from the right do not give a damn about the mother; all they want for those women to produce between 20 and 30 children, die in childbirth; die from a botch abortion; at no time will they empathize with the sacrifices they have to make (because women are intelligent people able to make an important decision all by themselves) either way.

And since right wing men do not want to take on their responsabilities either way, before and after; well we have to make our decisions alone.

And of course it is all our faults, they absolutly at anytime are responsible for anything in their lives.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Yes, raped women had a choice to not get pregnant. She shouldn'tve been walking through the park or had that drink with the sleeping pill. I'm sure it was prefectly concentual between the 13-year-old and her stepdad or uncle.

The case of raping and the case of health-problems/complications for the mother during the pregnancy or during the birth, are the only cases I view as legitimate to have an abortion for.

But as we all know the majority of abortions don't fall into these categories, but are used as birth-control, which I don't agree with.

If teenagers or twenty-somethings are not married and/or unable to take responsibility for a child, then they should not have sexual intercourse. It's really not that difficult to figure out.

If married people don't want additional children because of financial concerns, then they should use preventive measures that are wellknown and available, from condoms over dayafterpills...

In the very rare circumstance that all preventive measures fail for a married couple, they should simply view it as a divine intervention and present.

Man, how can anyone argue with a straight face for abortions, except for the cases of rape or health-risks for the mother.

I really don't get it.

Taliesin

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Out of curiosity, why is it that some of you are making claims about the morality of abortion in a discussion on its legality? Why is the morality of the action even relevant? Why is it that you would seem, on the surface, to want government to enforce a specific viewpoint on what is or is not moral behavior. Is this true? If so, why? Why would anyone want government dictating to its citizens what is or is not moral behavior, by codifying that behavior into law?

I think kangarooski offers the perfect example of why morality should NOT be enshrined into law. Does anyone really want it to be possible for the government to punish individuals for commiting morally questionable actions? Think about the example given. It *is* legal to not save someone's life when you have the ability to do so. The government doesn't care whether your inaction was or was not moral, all it cares is if your inaction was legal. Do any of you want the government interfering in a person's ability to make such a choice by enacting punitive legislation for *not* making a choice? Seriously, think about this for a minute. . . . In such a scenario, the government would become involved in punishing in-action, in punishing making the choice to not act. Does anyone really want that? I hope not.

ALL law has morality as its foundation. What makes anything right or wrong? Who decided that stealing is wrong? Who decided that murder is wrong? It simply IS wrong. Morality has a place in all aspects of the law; it is inseparable from law. Law is unnecessary without morality.

So, does anyone have a quick explanation why they think government should enforce morality through legislation instead of leaving morality where it usually lies, in the hands of the cultural group(s) making up the citizenry?

Yould make the same case about theft. Why should the government get involved with punishing a thief? Since taking something that does not belong to you is morally wrong, why not let this moral issue, as you say, lie in the hands of the cultural group(s) making up the citizenry? Government is partially established to enforce the law on as equal of a basis as possible.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Monique

The people from the right do not give a damn about the mother; all they want for those women to produce between 20 and 30 children, die in childbirth; die from a botch abortion; at no time will they empathize with the sacrifices they have to make (because women are intelligent people able to make an important decision all by themselves) either way.

And since right wing men do not want to take on their responsabilities either way, before and after; well we have to make our decisions alone.

And of course it is all our faults, they absolutly at anytime are responsible for anything in their lives.

Monique, you're way over the line every time you hyperventilate like this, and you don't even know it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Yes, raped women had a choice to not get pregnant. She shouldn'tve been walking through the park or had that drink with the sleeping pill. I'm sure it was prefectly concentual between the 13-year-old and her stepdad or uncle.

This is a unique situation, and is much less common than certain people would like us to think when debating abortion.

The only situation in which I could think about justifying abortion is when the mother's life is in danger. Even when a woman is raped and impregnanted (which is as horrifying a situation as I can imagine), I still believe that God has a purpose for that unborn child. She could give it up for abortion if she wished. I understand that instead of one terrifying crime that lasts only a few minutes or hours, she would have to endure 9 months of emotion distress, but I still wouldn't feel right about terminating an unborn child. No, it's not her fault that she's pregnant, but it's also not the child's fault.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The case of raping and the case of health-problems/complications for the mother during the pregnancy or during the birth, are the only cases I view as legitimate to have an abortion for.

But as we all know the majority of abortions don't fall into these categories, but are used as birth-control, which I don't agree with.

If teenagers or twenty-somethings are not married and/or unable to take responsibility for a child, then they should not have sexual intercourse. It's really not that difficult to figure out.

If married people don't want additional children because of financial concerns, then they should use preventive measures that are wellknown and available, from condoms over dayafterpills...

In the very rare circumstance that all preventive measures fail for a married couple, they should simply view it as a divine intervention and present.

Man, how can anyone argue with a straight face for abortions, except for the cases of rape or health-risks for the mother.

I really don't get it.

Taliesin

I heartily agree.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

ALL law has morality as its foundation. What makes anything right or wrong? Who decided that stealing is wrong? Who decided that murder is wrong? It simply IS wrong. Morality has a place in all aspects of the law; it is inseparable from law. Law is unnecessary without morality.



Yould make the same case about theft. Why should the government get involved with punishing a thief? Since taking something that does not belong to you is morally wrong, why not let this moral issue, as you say, lie in the hands of the cultural group(s) making up the citizenry? Government is partially established to enforce the law on as equal of a basis as possible.

"Law is unnecessary without morality."
Care to explain this point further? How do you think a society would function to explain your assumption that morality is necessary to have laws?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This is a unique situation, and is much less common than certain people would like us to think when debating abortion.

The only situation in which I could think about justifying abortion is when the mother's life is in danger. Even when a woman is raped and impregnanted (which is as horrifying a situation as I can imagine), I still believe that God has a purpose for that unborn child. She could give it up for abortion if she wished. I understand that instead of one terrifying crime that lasts only a few minutes or hours, she would have to endure 9 months of emotion distress, but I still wouldn't feel right about terminating an unborn child. No, it's not her fault that she's pregnant, but it's also not the child's fault.

This is a prime example of arrogance and intolerance. If an impregnated rape victim wishes to carry out the term, then all respect to her. But to even consider denying these people the choice, is, in my opinion, simply unthinkable. Though I think the number of abortions should be reduced, especially late term abortions, denying all women the right to chose just isn't the solution. I think abortions should be limited to within the first 12 weeks, though, except in cases of the mother's health.

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to get sexually active teens on the pill

[cpt kangarooski]

Jawbone54--

ALL law has morality as its foundation.

Oh?

So the law that says I cannot park overnight on the curb in my town has a moral foundation? What about zoning laws? Is a law against building a multifamily home in a suburban neighborhood there because it's immoral to have two family houses out there?

How about the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850? That law required that all law enforcement officers in the country help apprehend runaway slaves so that they could be returned to their owners. Precisely how was that law moral?

Morality has a place in all aspects of the law; it is inseparable from law.

No. Very many laws have no moral component whatsoever. They're just useful. It is not moral to pass a law establishing daylight saving time, it's just practical. And many other laws are decidedly immoral, but they're laws just the same.

Law is unnecessary without morality.

No. Some laws would be unnecessary if human beings always acted in a moral fashion. But others still would be because there are a lot of things that need regulating in order to yield a better society which are simply unrelated to morality.

This is all just blatantly obvious if you think for even a moment about some of the laws that are out there. Please try to think in the future; it may make you more interesting to have a discussion with. I don't really care for folks who make themselves into straw men for the rest of us to knock down.

Also, if you're going to stick to your demonstrably wrong assertion that "ALL law has morality as its foundation" then let's remember that right now, the law supports women being able to have abortions. Since that is the law, are you saying that abortions are moral? I think you must be, unless you were wrong about all laws having moral foundations. You can't have it both ways.

No, it's not her fault that she's pregnant, but it's also not the child's fault.

I agree. If someone thinks that abortion should not be allowed by choice, but should be allowed in the event of rape, I fail to see any consistancy there. If one finds it wrong to abort a fetus because of the mother's choice, then how is that fetus any different than one that is the product of rape. The fetus cannot be blamed for the circumstances of its conception.

Either support abortion generally, or don't support it in the case of rape, or incest, or whatnot.

Personally, I'm pro-choice. I don't see how people can possibly argue that women should have to be pregnant when they don't want to be, and a medically safe option for ending the pregnancy is available. This option can be abortion, or it can be a premature delivery, but lacking a sufficiently good reason for doing so, I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

[Busemann]

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Busemann

This is a prime example of arrogance and intolerance. If an impregnated rape victim wishes to carry out the term, then all respect to her. But to even consider denying these people the choice, is, in my opinion, simply unthinkable. Though I think the number of abortions should be reduced, especially late term abortions, denying all women the right to chose just isn't the solution. I think abortions should be limited to within the first 12 weeks, though, except in cases of the mother's health.

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to get sexually active teens on the pill

To associate the act of ending a human life with the word "choice" is the only way the left has been able to justify abortion. If respecting the right of an unborn child to live makes me "arrogant" and "intolerant," then I will gladly accept those titles in order to maintain the value I place upon human life.

[Monique]

When it comes to abortions we have have going round and round and round. So I am going to change the subject just for this reply just for a moment to prove that conservatives do not care and are heartless little b....

Yesterday and the past 2 days I have been watching Frontline (excellent PBS show) on AIDS; and they interviewed many people, showed the many faces of AIDS; where it came from; how it got to be the epedemic it is today.

I was especially interested in the beginning of the epedemic; and in the interview with Margaret Heckler (the damn bit..) and subsequently the Reagan administration and Regan; Heckler kept saying that the CDC had enough money (even though the people at the CDC had to borrow equipment from elsewhere, that their findings were disputed by the Reagan administration, that she lied when she said Gallo was the one who found the virus, when in reality the French did one year earlier, she did not order the bath houses to close, when she had proof that they were contributing into spreading AIDS, that the blood banks were infected and instead of forcing them to test for the Hepatatis B virus which would have been an indicator of that the bank was infected with the AIDS virus, she let it go making sure thousand of hemopheliacs and patients would be infected with the virus; the administration made sure that the stigma of AIDS negatively influenced thousand of people; ignore the fact that drug users were spreading the disease (so why not give them clean needles); refused to educate people (more specifically the distribution of a pamphlet that showed gay men how to protect themselves and their partners); refused to encourage the distribution of condoms (which would have slowed down the disease and abstinance does not work anywhere in the world; if it did there would not be any sexually transmitted disease and no unwanted pregnancy); put more of the stigma of AIDS on immigrants refusing entry to those who were sick or look suspect; ...

All those in the Reagan administration that are responsible for the spread of that disease, who could have stop it, or slow it down are reponsible for the death of hundred of thousand of people. As any Republican administration that prefer to put their heads in the sand that deal with such problems.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

To associate the act of ending a human life with the word "choice" is the only way the left has been able to justify abortion. If respecting the right of an unborn child to live makes me "arrogant" and "intolerant," then I will gladly accept those titles in order to maintain the value I place upon human life.

Umm abortion isn't really a black and white issue for most people. An overwhelming majority are against extreme anti abortion laws--well, South Dakota notwithstanding.

Even when people on the left and right make an effort to be open-minded, some people's minds are irreconcilable. I'm sure some people on each side of the abortion issue understand the other side; but many people's positions leave no room for opposition. If some types of abortion are legal, then abortion is legal, and some people won't be happy. If some gay marriage is legal, then homosexuality is legally endorsed, and some people won't be happy. I bet a lot of people would get a different perspective if they got involved on a more personal and concrete level. It's one thing to respect the fetus, but yeah, I would say you're arrogant and intolerant if you remove the mother from the equation.

[Jawbone54]

[EDIT]

I thought better of the original post. Deleted for everyone's sake.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

At week 8 of the pregnancy, the age of the fetus is considered 6 weeks old. See, the pic is from week 8:
http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/week8.html

Then how come in week 6

The picture is named...

6week.JPG

And 9 week the pic is named

http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/images/9weeks.JPG



Something fishy is abroad.

And every other pic I see of week 8, looks more like the one HE posted, and not yours.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Then how come in week 6

The picture is named...

6week.JPG

And 9 week the pic is named

http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/images/9weeks.JPG



Something fishy is abroad.

And every other pic I see of week 8, looks more like the one HE posted, and not yours.

What an outrage! I hope you're sending them a strongly worded letter

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

What an outrage! I hope you're sending them a strongly worded letter

Naw, I wont bother.

I am just simply pointing out your "8 week" old picture is actually 6 weeks.

Not your fault, theirs. But your reply to the original 8 week post was faulty.

That is all.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

When it comes to abortions we have have going round and round and round. So I am going to change the subject just for this reply just for a moment to prove that conservatives do not care and are heartless little b....

Yesterday and the past 2 days I have been watching Frontline (excellent PBS show) on AIDS; and they interviewed many people, showed the many faces of AIDS; where it came from; how it got to be the epedemic it is today.

I was especially interested in the beginning of the epedemic; and in the interview with Margaret Heckler (the damn bit..) and subsequently the Reagan administration and Regan; Heckler kept saying that the CDC had enough money (even though the people at the CDC had to borrow equipment from elsewhere, that their findings were disputed by the Reagan administration, that she lied when she said Gallo was the one who found the virus, when in reality the French did one year earlier, she did not order the bath houses to close, when she had proof that they were contributing into spreading AIDS, that the blood banks were infected and instead of forcing them to test for the Hepatatis B virus which would have been an indicator of that the bank was infected with the AIDS virus, she let it go making sure thousand of hemopheliacs and patients would be infected with the virus; the administration made sure that the stigma of AIDS negatively influenced thousand of people; ignore the fact that drug users were spreading the disease (so why not give them clean needles); refused to educate people (more specifically the distribution of a pamphlet that showed gay men how to protect themselves and their partners); refused to encourage the distribution of condoms (which would have slowed down the disease and abstinance does not work anywhere in the world; if it did there would not be any sexually transmitted disease and no unwanted pregnancy); put more of the stigma of AIDS on immigrants refusing entry to those who were sick or look suspect; ...

All those in the Reagan administration that are responsible for the spread of that disease, who could have stop it, or slow it down are reponsible for the death of hundred of thousand of people. As any Republican administration that prefer to put their heads in the sand that deal with such problems.

I thought Regan was the Treasury Secretary.

At any rate, your post reflects the fact that you were pwned so many times in this thread that you had to change the subject. We all know the French Canadians were to blame for the AIDS epidemic.