Discussion: Abortion

[Marx]

Pro-Life. Pro-Choice. Discuss.

[SuBe]

I will not discuss this, because there is no way anyone can discuss it civilaly. But, thanks for opening a thread for it. Let's hope the following posts are not so, let's say, Gladatorial.

[Marx]

I will not discuss this, because there is no way anyone can discuss it civilaly. But, thanks for opening a thread for it. Let's hope the following posts are not so, let's say, Gladatorial.

I just thought that since there are some posters discussing this in other threads, that maybe one should be created for it. (So it doesn't hijack said threads.)

[SuBe]

I just thought that since there are some posters discussing this in other threads, that maybe one should be created for it. (So it doesn't hijack said threads.)
Oh, I suggested this earlier today.

Jman and I were talking about changing "Thread Hijack" to "Thread Rape". It's more appropriate somtimes.

This is such a delicate subject. Who can say when life begins. Who can say when personal liberty trumps life? Who can say personal responsiblity when you have a possible child in the waiting? How can a Man force Government to make a woman do something she doesn't want to do? But, how can that same woman terminate a life? Does life start at conception? Or when the Fetus stops sucking life internally (which some parents would say is 18 years old)?

I can't discuss the finer points of this, but good luck for anyone that will try.

[Gilpesh]

"Thread Rape".

So you would be pro-abortion in the case of thread rape? :oldrazz:

Who can say when life begins.

It's a hard line to define... but I think there was evidence (scientific) that says it's not conception.

[SuBe]

So you would be pro-abortion in the case of thread rape? :oldrazz:
I support a fair and comprihensive Dust'n and a Clean'n in the event of a Thread Rape.


It's a hard line to define... but I think there was evidence (scientific) that says it's not conception.
One could argue that life begins at the first heartbeat. Or the First time a Zigote turns into what ever a zigote turns into. You know, Cell Division and such.

[bunk]

I think life begins fairly shortly after the egg is fertilized I guess. An embryo is an example of life. When is it aware of itself though? Is sentient life the distinction? Maybe we'll be able to more accurately pinpoint when that self awareness begins after more study of the developing brain. For many, I don't think that's at all relevant. I myself, do not have a fully formed opinion about this.

[Gilpesh]

I support a fair and comprihensive Dust'n and a Clean'n in the event of a Thread Rape.

I'm more in favor of the stomach kick/stairs topple method.

One could argue that life begins at the first heartbeat. Or the First time a Zigote turns into what ever a zigote turns into. You know, Cell Division and such.

Yeah... we're not biologists... let's just keep to the maybe inappropriate joking of a thread being a woman and having abortions.

[The Senator]

Pro-choice. And that's as far as I'm going with this.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm anti-abortion, and I can't stand the phrase "pro-life" because it's too generic.

[danoyse]

I'm pro-choice. I don't like abortion, I wouldn't choose it for myself, but I don't have the right to tell anyone else what to do.

And I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade would make things any better. It won't make abortion go away. The process itself would still exist, and women desperate enough to have one will end up finding some dangerous illegal method of getting one. I'd prefer it be left as a safe option done by medical professionals, and not with a coat hanger in a back alley somewhere.

[The Senator]

Three years ago, a female friend of mine came up to me and told me she was pregnant. And because I'm such a charming, smart, intellectual person, she asked what she should do about her pregnancy.

I told her it was her choice.

She continued to ask me. She continued to ask what I thought she should do.

So I told her that I did not know what she was going through, and therefore I am unqualified to make the decision for her. But if I had to make a recommendation, if I were in that scenario, I would keep the baby and put it through adoption. Why? Because I felt that it was the right path. The best path for an unborn child.

But she didn't. Because she couldn't let a pregnancy get in the way of her academic career, a pregnancy which she never intended to have, because she used protection and was "as careful as could be." She is still with the boyfriend, I don't think he knows about the pregnancy and the subsequent abortion-- and why should he? It wasn't intended, she never wanted to get pregnant, they couldn't raise a child if they wanted to and they didn't want to go through the emotional turmoil that pregnancy caused. I can't blame her. At all.

And that, as far as I'm concerned, shows why men cannot have a solid opinion on the matter. Because we can never know what these women feel. We can never know what it is like to get pregnant at such a young age, to have an 'accidental' child.

Many of you may be surprised to learn that, long ago, I was "pro-life." Anti-abortion, anti-choice, etc. I was actually more conservative three years ago than I am today.That incident was the pinnacle of my political realignment. Because I realized I would never, ever be able to make the best decision in such a situation, because I am not a woman and therefore I just don't know how to deal with such an earth-shattering decision.

Many of you know from other threads that I have tried to seek the best rationale behind why a fetus is not a fully developed human being. The best explanation I ever came up with was that a fetus has a parasitic relationship with the mother, and because the fetus is a part of the mother's body, that means she has total control over its fate until it is able to survive on its own. Is my opinion the best? No. Is it controversial? Of course. But that's how I understand it. That's how I justify abortion, on a moral standing.

I said I wouldn't get into it, and I don't plan on doing so any further... but I feel like I needed to say that... I know StorminNorman has a similar, if not more direct, story of his own...

[Addendum]

If a woman decides to have an abortion or not is none of my business.

[luke1234]

its up to the women; pro choice, again wont go any further then that.

[Trainwreck2100]

I've always been against it, unless a)the act of giving birth poses a threat to the mother's life or b)it's a product of rape. You can't do the time don't do the crime.

[Luca]

You can't do the time don't do the crime.

It's about so much more than that. You could have been perfectly safe, there's always a chance, however small, that something will go wrong. Should you be punished for that? Risks come with everything in life, but that doesn't mean we have to avoid them, that would be impossible. And you can't blame people for taking those risks.

I've always been pro-choice, by the way, for pretty much the same arguments people have already made in this thread.

By the way, hi, I'm new here!

[Hobodeluxe]

here's my story and why I believe what I believe.

For myself and my wife we could never condone abortion. I'm 48 yrs old and my wife got pregnant when she was 19 soon after we married in 1980. We were in no shape financially but neither of us could think the unthinkable. The thought of it sickens me. But that's us.
As far as I'm concerned if a girl gets in trouble and it's early on I really don't have a huge problem with it because I believe in personal responsibility and if it's a sin then they will answer for it come judgment. My bible tells me not to judge.
The reason I take this position is very personal.
In 1976 I knew this family,the oldest son was my best friend and we hung out working on cars (both of us had 65 mustangs) that were ultra conservative and right wing.
Six kids,3 boys 3 girls. The girls were not allowed to wear pants. Every night it was family prayer hour and bible study when church wasn't going on.
Well as teenagers are want to do and as their hormones rage outta control they sometimes mess up.
She got into trouble. And she confided in me and a couple of her friends at school. She faced a terrible dilemma because she did not want to shame her family.
Long story short she died accidentally trying to make herself miscarry.

Now I know this was her choice. It'[s sad that she felt she couldn't trust her mother.
But people need to realize this is the kind of stuff that happens. Kids will not stop having sex. It's probably one of the most natural and primal urges we have. It's an inherent physiological trait that ensures survival of the species. And to demonize it and shame kids for having those urges and condemning them instead of reaching out to them and reassuring them is wrong and it's a sin and goes against everything I as a parent believe is right.

all actions have consequences. more unwanted or unneeded babies becoming a burden on the system is one of them. the govt should approach this pragmatically and not emotionally.
If we as a people decide that the girl down the street must be forced to deliver a kid then we share a responsibility to see to it that kid is given what it need to become a productive citizen.
Personally I'd rather it stay a state's right.

[SuBe]

It's about so much more than that. You could have been perfectly safe, there's always a chance, however small, that something will go wrong. Should you be punished for that? Risks come with everything in life, but that doesn't mean we have to avoid them, that would be impossible. And you can't blame people for taking those risks.

I've always been pro-choice, by the way, for pretty much the same arguments people have already made in this thread.

By the way, hi, I'm new here!
I have a question about this, maybe anyone can answer. Like I said up there in my First Post, I don't talk about this. But, Is a child punishment? Is human life so utterly disgusting, that you would call human life a punishment?

Prison time, is punishment. 10 Slashes is punishment, detention is punishment, and suspension without pay is punishment. How is a child punishment?

I leave this thread now, but I would like to hear an answer on that.

[Killgore]

Three years ago, a female friend of mine came up to me and told me she was pregnant. And because I'm such a charming, smart, intellectual person, she asked what she should do about her pregnancy.

I told her it was her choice.

She continued to ask me. She continued to ask what I thought she should do.

So I told her that I did not know what she was going through, and therefore I am unqualified to make the decision for her. But if I had to make a recommendation, if I were in that scenario, I would keep the baby and put it through adoption. Why? Because I felt that it was the right path. The best path for an unborn child.

But she didn't. Because she couldn't let a pregnancy get in the way of her academic career, a pregnancy which she never intended to have, because she used protection and was "as careful as could be." She is still with the boyfriend, I don't think he knows about the pregnancy and the subsequent abortion-- and why should he? It wasn't intended, she never wanted to get pregnant, they couldn't raise a child if they wanted to and they didn't want to go through the emotional turmoil that pregnancy caused. I can't blame her. At all.

And that, as far as I'm concerned, shows why men cannot have a solid opinion on the matter. Because we can never know what these women feel. We can never know what it is like to get pregnant at such a young age, to have an 'accidental' child.

Many of you may be surprised to learn that, long ago, I was "pro-life." Anti-abortion, anti-choice, etc. I was actually more conservative three years ago than I am today.That incident was the pinnacle of my political realignment. Because I realized I would never, ever be able to make the best decision in such a situation, because I am not a woman and therefore I just don't know how to deal with such an earth-shattering decision.

Many of you know from other threads that I have tried to seek the best rationale behind why a fetus is not a fully developed human being. The best explanation I ever came up with was that a fetus has a parasitic relationship with the mother, and because the fetus is a part of the mother's body, that means she has total control over its fate until it is able to survive on its own. Is my opinion the best? No. Is it controversial? Of course. But that's how I understand it. That's how I justify abortion, on a moral standing.

I said I wouldn't get into it, and I don't plan on doing so any further... but I feel like I needed to say that... I know StorminNorman has a similar, if not more direct, story of his own...
Well stated. I used to be prolife until I had a similar realignment of my thinking. I don't have a womb, so I should keep my damn mouth shut.

[The Chairman]

I'm pro-choice. I feel that abortion is the prime example of a necessary evil. No one likes abortion, it's a daunting, harrowing decision that stays with you forever, but in some cases, it's often the right choice. Plus, children born when not intended often grow up in households where they are viewed as parasites and have a higher chance of emotional problems and have greater potential to turn to crime later in life. As someone who intends to become a Children's Rights activist, I can't bare seeing something like that happen just because the parents made a mistake.

[SuperT]

I believe that it's absolutely, 100% a womans right to choose what she does with an embryo growing in her body, whether that is keeping it or aborting it.

Until us men start getting pregnant (lol) we have no right to tell a woman what to do with it.

[Marx]

It's about so much more than that. You could have been perfectly safe, there's always a chance, however small, that something will go wrong. Should you be punished for that? Risks come with everything in life, but that doesn't mean we have to avoid them, that would be impossible. And you can't blame people for taking those risks.

I've always been pro-choice, by the way, for pretty much the same arguments people have already made in this thread.

By the way, hi, I'm new here!

Welcome to the boards Luca! :yay:

[SentinelMind]

Personally I'd rather it stay a state's right.

Well, its not currently a state's right. Then you would prefer that Roe v Wade was overturned, and allow state legislatures to regulate abortions.

here's my story and why I believe what I believe.

For myself and my wife we could never condone abortion. I'm 48 yrs old and my wife got pregnant when she was 19 soon after we married in 1980. We were in no shape financially but neither of us could think the unthinkable. The thought of it sickens me. But that's us.
As far as I'm concerned if a girl gets in trouble and it's early on I really don't have a huge problem with it because I believe in personal responsibility and if it's a sin then they will answer for it come judgment. My bible tells me not to judge.
The reason I take this position is very personal.
In 1976 I knew this family,the oldest son was my best friend and we hung out working on cars (both of us had 65 mustangs) that were ultra conservative and right wing.
Six kids,3 boys 3 girls. The girls were not allowed to wear pants. Every night it was family prayer hour and bible study when church wasn't going on.
Well as teenagers are want to do and as their hormones rage outta control they sometimes mess up.
She got into trouble. And she confided in me and a couple of her friends at school. She faced a terrible dilemma because she did not want to shame her family.
Long story short she died accidentally trying to make herself miscarry.

What you've described is a really tragic incident. It is sad that children doesn't trust their parent and makes a tradic decision like this. However, I do not believe minors should be allowed to have government-funded abortion or to do undergo any serious medical procedure without informing their parents. I think what you're implicity implying is that girl should have had a right to an government-funded abortion where the parents would be uninformed. I agree that getting pregnant can be perceived shameful and sad, but that isn't enough justification to not allow the parents to be aware that their child is underoing this medical procedure. The problem here was that the child didn't trust parents, and it seems to be the lack of trust was based on the parent's strict religious faith or discipline. If there was trust between the child and the parent, I'd assume she'd have been alive today. The argument that the government should circumvent the authority of religious people to raise their child because the government knows better than the parent is a dangerous position that I do not support.


But people need to realize this is the kind of stuff that happens. Kids will not stop having sex. It's probably one of the most natural and primal urges we have. It's an inherent physiological trait that ensures survival of the species. And to demonize it and shame kids for having those urges and condemning them instead of reaching out to them and reassuring them is wrong and it's a sin and goes against everything I as a parent believe is right.


Ok, but shouldn't the parent be aware if their child is undergoing an abortion?


all actions have consequences. more unwanted or unneeded babies becoming a burden on the system is one of them. the govt should approach this pragmatically and not emotionally.

Ok, the position that children should have the right to get an abortion without parental notification, because they don't want to be 'shamed' is a purely emotional position that undermine parent's right.


If we as a people decide that the girl down the street must be forced to deliver a kid then we share a responsibility to see to it that kid is given what it need to become a productive citizen.

Fair enough.

[The Chairman]

I have a question about this, maybe anyone can answer. Like I said up there in my First Post, I don't talk about this. But, Is a child punishment? Is human life so utterly disgusting, that you would call human life a punishment?

Prison time, is punishment. 10 Slashes is punishment, detention is punishment, and suspension without pay is punishment. How is a child punishment?

I leave this thread now, but I would like to hear an answer on that.

Let's look at it form the alternate perspective:

Why should a child be born into a home where it's going to be thought of as a mistake and an incovenience instead of a product of true love and commitment, which is what childbirth is supposed to be?

It's not as black and white as you seem to want to make it. A woman doesn't just say "**** it, I'm killing this baby." It's a severe, emotionally crippling decision. You portray it as way too simple.

[The Chairman]

I agree that a parent should know if their child has had an abortion.

[SentinelMind]

I have a question about this, maybe anyone can answer. Like I said up there in my First Post, I don't talk about this. But, Is a child punishment? Is human life so utterly disgusting, that you would call human life a punishment?

Prison time, is punishment. 10 Slashes is punishment, detention is punishment, and suspension without pay is punishment. How is a child punishment?

I leave this thread now, but I would like to hear an answer on that.

That's what sad about the pro-abortion position is that is disrespects life...it treats personal obligation to a child you helped procreate as a punishment, ...but these same people then take the position that we should pass even more government social programs because we have obligations to others, even other healthy grown adults. It's not about respect for life, its about control and power.

[The Chairman]

That's what sad about the pro-abortion position is that is disrespects life...it treats personal obligation to a child you helped procreate as a punishment, ...but these same people then take the position that we should pass even more government social programs because we have obligations to others, even other healthy grown adults. It's not about respect for life, its about control and power.

You aren't fully knowledgable on this issue, are you?

[Matt]

Pro-life...but I do not like the notion of the government getting involved to stop it unless it is a late term abortion (with exceptions being cases of the mother's health).

[SentinelMind]

You aren't fully knowledgable on this issue, are you?
:whatever: Oh, no, please share your wisdom and expertise....

[Gilpesh]

Yeah, I'm pro-choice but can get along with anti-abortion people if they at least say "rape and life of the mother, abortions are alright" and "the government shouldn't stop abortions".

[The Chairman]

:whatever: Oh, no, please share your wisdom and expertise....

I shall. I researched this topic for debate class, was on the pro-choice side, and won hands down because the pro-life team couldn't come up with any argument other than screaming "OMG! It's murder!" for five minutes, occasionally peppering in some dialogue about how it causes mental issues.

Abortion is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. You make it seem as if every case is simply done for convenience, yet that's hardly the case. There are certain issues, such as deformities or the potential harm or even death of the mother during child birth, not to mention rape, that sadly warrant the consideration and often carrying out of an abortion.

And as for cases done simply for convenience, consider this. A young woman has her own goals in life - going to college, traveling, finding a good job - that she wants to fulfill. She has her entire mind set on doing these things and is adamant about it. Then she gets pregnant. This requires an entire rearrangment of her thought process and priorities so she can take her of her child. This can cause great, physical, emotional and mental stress on a woman, especially one who's barely an adult. Plus, she's probably going to take whatever feelings of regret and anger about the issues out on the child, which as I said earlier that the child is going to grow up in a loveless environment where the child will be viewed as a mistake, which will cause him to develop his own issues later on in life.

[The Chairman]

Pro-life...but I do not like the notion of the government getting involved to stop it unless it is a late term abortion (with exceptions being cases of the mother's health).

I agree with late term abortions. I find them disgusting. Though I'm pretty sure they're only supposed to be administered if the mother's health is in danger.

[SentinelMind]

I shall. I researched this topic for debate class, was on the pro-choice side, and won hands down because the pro-life team couldn't come up with any argument other than screaming "OMG! It's murder!" for five minutes, occasionally peppering in some dialogue about how it causes mental issues.

Wow, congratulations on your win in the debate class! Your ability to do research on this topic is amazing, may you please elaborate? Was it high school or college?


Abortion is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. You make it seem as if every case is simply done for convenience, yet that's hardly the case. There are certain issues, such as deformities or the potential harm or even death of the mother during child birth, not to mention rape, that sadly warrant the consideration and often carrying out of an abortion.

Really, I had no idea of those issues until you mentioned it in this post.


And as for cases done simply for convenience, consider this. A young woman has her own goals in life - going to college, traveling, finding a good job - that she wants to fulfill. She has her entire mind set on doing these things and is adamant about it. Then she gets pregnant. This requires an entire rearrangment of her thought process and priorities so she can take her of her child. This can cause great, physical, emotional and mental stress on a woman, especially one who's barely an adult. Plus, she's probably going to take whatever feelings of regret and anger about the issues out on the child, which as I said earlier that the child is going to grow up in a loveless environment where the child will be viewed as a mistake, which will cause him to develop his own issues later on in life.

Look, my position is that Roe v Wade is a poorly decided decision, and that issues like this should be decided by the state. You can make all these wonderful arguments within legislative process.

Now, this is just my opinion/observation.....my personal opinion.....but if you're pregnant,....and you decide birthing the child will inconvenience career, academics......and for that reason choose an abortion, then yes, by simple logic (not morality, not theology, not ideology, not the Bible,.but simple straightforward logic), you are choosing career/academics over that child. Whether you think its right or wrong, is not the issue, its simple logic that the person getting the abortion is not willing to sacrifice any part of those other priority for the unborn.

[Addendum]

And that is the mother's choice, no one else's. So it's none of your business.

[SuBe]

Pro-life...but I do not like the notion of the government getting involved to stop it unless it is a late term abortion (with exceptions being cases of the mother's health).
I agree, I'm Pro-Liberty, but anti-abortion. I find abortion deplorable, but also find Anti-Liberty deplorable. I side with Liberty.

While I don't like the thought of it, I don't like Government control over Freedom.

[Marx]

edit

[The Chairman]

Wow, congratulations on your win in the debate class! Your ability to do research on this topic is amazing, may you please elaborate? Was it high school or college?

I don't have the research at hand, but it was a high school debate. But this really isn't important.

Really, I had no idea of those issues until you mentioned it in this post.

Is this sarcasm or are you genuinely unaware of these issues?

Now, this is just my opinion/observation.....my personal opinion.....but if you're pregnant,....and you decide birthing the child will inconvenience career, academics......and for that reason choose an abortion, then yes, by simple logic (not morality, not theology, not ideology, not the Bible,.but simple straightforward logic), you are choosing career/academics over that child. Whether you think its right or wrong, is not the issue, its simple logic that the person getting the abortion is not willing to sacrifice any part of those other priority for the unborn.

It's not a simple statement of "Screw the child, I have my own goals" issue. It's a self observational situation in which the mother asks herself, "Will I be able to set aside my own goals to competently raise this child without heaping my personal rgret anger at this situation on it?" Personally, I think it's even more selfish to have the baby knowing you're just going to wind up taking all your frustrations out on it knowing you had the option of sparing the child form such a miserable, unloved homelife.

[SentinelMind]

And that is the mother's choice, no one else's. So it's none of your business.

Ah, if it were only that simple, but it is not.

Let's avoid the life of the unborn, since liberals don't like talking about that stuff.

If you applied Chairman's argument consistently to men, it would fold under weight. The man is at the mercy of what the woman decides as to what impact the chidl will have on finances, lifestyle, career, academic. If the father is like "I can't be a father right now...I need to finish school"
and the mother is like "too bad"...the father has no say in it. So I should be sympathetic to the mother who makes those arguments, but not the father, even though the impact will be the same?

[The Chairman]

Ah, if it were only that simple, but it is not.

Let's avoid the life of the unborn, since liberals don't like talking about that stuff.

If you applied Chairman's argument consistently to men, it would fold under weight. The man is at the mercy of what the woman decides as to what impact the chidl will have on finances, lifestyle, career, academic. If the father is like "I can't be a father right now...I need to finish school"
and the mother is like "too bad"...the father has no say in it. So I should be sympathetic to the mother who makes those arguments, but not the father, even though the impact will be the same?

If that's the case, it's the woman's decision. She'll either have to raise it alone, abort it or put it up for adoption?

Second of all, the father's decision will probably force the woman to alter her decision, possibly in a reluctant manner. Which, in actuality, shows how incompetent us men really are in this situation.

[Marx]

Ah, if it were only that simple, but it is not.

Let's avoid the life of the unborn, since liberals don't like talking about that stuff.

If you applied Chairman's argument consistently to men, it would fold under weight. The man is at the mercy of what the woman decides as to what impact the chidl will have on finances, lifestyle, career, academic. If the father is like "I can't be a father right now...I need to finish school"
and the mother is like "too bad"...the father has no say in it. So I should be sympathetic to the mother who makes those arguments, but not the father, even though the impact will be the same?

Abortion is not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans.

[SentinelMind]

I don't have the research at hand, but it was a high school debate. But this really isn't important.



Is this sarcasm or are you genuinely unaware of these issues?

I forgot to put some smilies. :cwink:



It's not a simple statement of "Screw the child, I have my own goals" issue. It's a self observational situation in which the mother asks herself, "Will I be able to set aside my own goals to competently raise this child without heaping my personal rgret anger at this situation on it?" Personally, I think it's even more selfish to have the baby knowing you're just going to wind up taking all your frustrations out on it knowing you had the option of sparing the child form such a miserable, unloved homelife.

Its much simpler than that. The person decided one thing was higher prioirty than the other thing.....so she decided to go through with the abortion. Its straightforward logic.

[Addendum]

Why do you care if a woman has an abortion or not, Sentinel Mind?

[The Chairman]

Its much simpler than that. The person decided one thing was higher prioirty than the other thing.....so she decided to go through with the abortion. Its straightforward logic.

* sigh * :whatever:

It's not a case of the mother being selfish and saying "I'm doing what I want." I'm sure there are some cases where that is the basic mindframe, but to assign it to all or even most is rediculous. As I said, it's just as if not more often the women analyzing her child raising abilities and realziing whether or not she could competently set aside her own goals for the child, and whether she's of the proper emotional and mental state to do so. I don't see how that's selfish.

[SentinelMind]

In my personal opinion, I think abortion is immoral, but larger issue, I think abortion undermines a legal system and culture that respects life. You could make the Civil War argument, why care if someone else in this country owns a slave, if you live somewhere else where there are no slaves. That person's ownership of a slave doesn't affect you, ....its none of my damn business, right?

But that's not the issue, who cares what SentinelMind thinks? I'd like to know what the majority of the voting public thinks.

Let the issue be decided through the democratic process, preferably at the state level.

[SentinelMind]

* sigh * :whatever:

It's not a case of the mother being selfish and saying "I'm doing what I want." I'm sure there are some cases where that is the basic mindframe, but to assign it to all or even most is rediculous. As I said, it's just as if not more often the women analyzing her child raising abilities and realziing whether or not she could competently set aside her own goals for the child, and whether she's of the proper emotional and mental state to do so. I don't see how that's selfish.

Look, the fetus is trying to survive....that's its inner instinct...to live...to get out of the mother's womb. If nothing artificial interferes with the process, the fetus will live.

The mother's thinking process is what interferes. If the mother says, I can't take take care of this child and the legal obligations of the child, she will consider terminating the child. The mother's interest comes in conflict to the fetus's natural instinct to survive. The mother can jump through all these hoola-hoops, but I don't see how you're putting the interest of the child by not allowing it to live.

There are two paths....two hard paths. Either the mother and hopefully father sacrifice some of career/academics for child...or...the mother gets an abortion. That's it. Two paths. You decide what path to take. But don't the logic make it all esoteric and convoluted for the sake of it.

[The Chairman]

Look, the fetus is trying to survive....that's its inner instinct...to live...to get out of the mother's womb. If nothing artificial interferes with the process, the fetus will live.

The mother's thinking process is what interferes. If the mother says, I can't take take care of this child and the legal obligations of the child, she will consider terminating the child. The mother's interest comes in conflict to the fetus's natural instinct to survive. The mother can jump through all these hoola-hoops, but I don't see how you're putting the interest of the child by not allowing it to live.

There are two paths....two hard paths. Either the mother and hopefully father sacrifice some of career/academics for child......the mother gets an abortion. That's it. Two paths. You decide what path to take. But don't the logic make it all esoteric and convoluted for the sake of it.

I'm not.

And frankly, I do feel abortion in some cases is better off for the mother AND the child. A child is better off not being the product of unwilling parents.

[SentinelMind]

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/13-famous-people-who-were-adopted.htm

Which one of these famous people who were adopted should have been terminated?

[Addendum]

In my personal opinion, I think abortion is immoral, but larger issue, I think abortion undermines a legal system and culture that respects life. You could make the Civil War argument, why care if someone else in this country owns a slave, if you live somewhere else where there are no slaves. That person's ownership of a slave doesn't affect you, ....its none of my damn business, right?

But that's not the issue, who cares what SentinelMind thinks? I'd like to know what the majority of the voting public thinks.

Let the issue be decided through the democratic process, preferably at the state level.

Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned though?

The decision to have an abortion is solely a woman's decision. People can chime in with whatever, but the final decision is hers alone.

And since you're pro-life, why are you talking on here instead of blocking off cemetaries or protesting executions of criminals?

[The Chairman]

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/13-famous-people-who-were-adopted.htm

Which one of these famous people who were adopted should have been terminated?

What's your point?

[Hobodeluxe]

Ok, but shouldn't the parent be aware if their child is undergoing an abortion?


Being the parent of a 23 yr old daughter I know the desire of the parents to protect their kids and to have control over their lives but in a lot of these cases that would make a bad situation worse. Not only the shame but the idea of exposure could lead to the scenario I described or a rift in the family.
And in a lot of cases incest is involved. this could endanger her if she wasn't willing to tell on him.

tell me. who does it benefit for the parent to know and how? and believe me I would want to know but should I?

sometimes "what you don't know won't hurt you" is a valid statement.

Do you have any secrets you kept from your parents when you were growing up? stuff they probably would have wanted to know about if they did it wouldn't have benefited anyone.

what's best for the girl is my main concern.

[SentinelMind]

Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned though?

Because it was a poorly decided Supreme Court Decision having little to do with the US Constitution??? You think poorly decided Supreme Court decisions should be upheld just because it produces the result you want?


The decision to have an abortion is solely a woman's decision. People can chime in with whatever, but the final decision is hers alone.

Besides...the termination of the child, the decision she makes at this point will have impact on others, including the father. But as I said before, all the details of abortion regulation....whether it should be legal first trimester, second trimester, third trimester, whether rape and incest should be excused, whether it should change based on new medical procedures, whether parent of a minor should know...........should be decided by state legislature and not some appointed Justice with no legal authority.


And since you're pro-life, why are you talking on here instead of blocking off cemetaries or protesting executions of criminals?

I'm against the death penalty, I don't think the government should have authority to execute its own civilians.

[SentinelMind]

What's your point?

That if the biological parents of those people agreed with your argument, they'd have never existed.

[SentinelMind]

Being the parent of a 23 yr old daughter I know the desire of the parents to protect their kids and to have control over their lives but in a lot of these cases that would make a bad situation worse. Not only the shame but the idea of exposure could lead to the scenario I described or a rift in the family.
And in a lot of cases incest is involved. this could endanger her if she wasn't willing to tell on him.

tell me. who does it benefit for the parent to know and how? and believe me I would want to know but should I?

I think so,...but I don't want you assisting the government to remove the right of parents to know.



sometimes "what you don't know won't hurt you" is a valid statement.

Uhm, no,..this isn't a blockbuster movie cliche....this is real life. I don't want the government telling me what I should or should not know with respect to what happening in my own family. Period.


Do you have any secrets you kept from your parents when you were growing up? stuff they probably would have wanted to know about if they did it wouldn't have benefited anyone.

I don't want the government....the government cooperating in a conspiracy to withhold life-jeapordizing information from a parent.


what's best for the girl is my main concern.

I'd like the parent to know that.....and not some government bueracrat to decide.

[Matt]

Y'know what, here are my honest thoughts on the abortion debate...

There is not a politican in the country, holding office who would make an honest attempt to stop abortion. Why? Because Republicans use it as a battle cry to get elected and if that is gone, what is their ace in the hole? And if Democrats tried to out law it they would lose their office as they would lose the support from their base.

So that leaves us at a virtual stalemate. Maybe the real solution is to take the politics out of abortion. I mean, what does it really say about our society, that women get pregnant, decide they just don't want the baby, so they have it terminated? I know, not all women do so simply because they do not want inconvenienced, but a lot do. What does that really say about us? Maybe it is time we as a society started taking responsibility. No more of this ******** "Teach abstinence!" Lets teach responsibility. Teach kids to use birth control, to actually think about their actions and consequences. Make it more easily accessible to kids. See what that does to abortion rates.

[Addendum]

Because it was a poorly decided Supreme Court Decision having little to do with the US Constitution??? You think poorly decided Supreme Court decisions should be upheld just because it produces the result you want?
It doesn't matter what I want. It's not my decision.




Besides...the termination of the child, the decision she makes at this point will have impact on others, including the father. But as I said before, all the details of abortion regulation should be decided by state legislature and not some appointed Justice with no legal authority.
The Supreme Court is the final word regarding the legal system and they have the authority of judicial review. Lower courts have no authority to overturn their decisions.


I'm against the death penalty, I don't think the government should have authority to execute its own civilians.
I have no reason to lose sleep when a murderer or child rapist is executed in prison

[SentinelMind]

It doesn't matter what I want. It's not my decision.

The Supreme Court has the obligation to uphold the Constitution and not throw down legislation based on ideology. This isn't about what one wants, its about what is logically consistent a highly respected document.




The Supreme Court is the final word regarding the legal system and they have the authority of judicial review. Lower courts have no authority to overturn their decisions.

Which is why Supreme Court appointments are such a volatile issue.



I have no reason to lose sleep when a murderer or child rapist is executed in prison

That's fine, my position is based on principle government should do upmost to protect life of all its citizens.

[SuBe]

Look, the fetus is trying to survive....that's its inner instinct...to live...to get out of the mother's womb. If nothing artificial interferes with the process, the fetus will live.

The mother's thinking process is what interferes. If the mother says, I can't take take care of this child and the legal obligations of the child, she will consider terminating the child. The mother's interest comes in conflict to the fetus's natural instinct to survive. The mother can jump through all these hoola-hoops, but I don't see how you're putting the interest of the child by not allowing it to live.

There are two paths....two hard paths. Either the mother and hopefully father sacrifice some of career/academics for child...or...the mother gets an abortion. That's it. Two paths. You decide what path to take. But don't the logic make it all esoteric and convoluted for the sake of it.
Thrid path, adoption.

[The Chairman]

Thrid path, adoption.

But how can you ensure the child will be treated properly? Orphanages and foster homes often have horrible living conditions.

[Gilpesh]

That's fine, my position is based on principle government should do upmost to protect life of all its citizens.

The government says a baby isn't a citizen until it is born.

So there goes that argument.

[SentinelMind]

But how can you ensure the child will be treated properly? Orphanages and foster homes often have horrible living conditions.

So you're arguing,

living as an orphan < death

I think those celebrities I listed will disagree with you.

[SentinelMind]

The government says a baby isn't a citizen until it is born.

So there goes that argument.

Are you basing that purely on Roe v Wade or is there another document that says that? If a person can get charged with manslaughter for hurting an unborn child, then that would contradict your assertion.

[Handsome Rob]

The government says a baby isn't a citizen until it is born.

So there goes that argument.

So the government has no obligation to protect the lives or rights of non-citizens? How do you feel about Gitmo?

And I would say there goes THAT argument.

[Handsome Rob]

Why do you care if a woman has an abortion or not, Sentinel Mind?

Why oppose the US invasion of Iraq if you're not an Iraqi or know people who live there?

I could ask that same question to people who oppose the Iraq war, and it's just as relevant.

[The Chairman]

Why oppose the US invasion of Iraq if you're not an Iraqi or know people who live there?

Because the Iraq War was an unneccessary invasion based on ******** information that has severely damaged the image of our country.

[StrainedEyes]

So the government has no obligation to protect the lives or rights of non-citizens? How do you feel about Gitmo?

And I would say there goes THAT argument.

A non-US citizen and an unborn fetus are not the same thing.

[Addendum]

Why oppose the US invasion of Iraq if you're not an Iraqi or know people who live there?

I could ask that same question to people who oppose the Iraq war, and it's just as relevant.

There's no connection between a war and a woman deciding to have an abortion or not.

[The Senator]

Y'know what, here are my honest thoughts on the abortion debate...

There is not a politican in the country, holding office who would make an honest attempt to stop abortion. Why? Because Republicans use it as a battle cry to get elected and if that is gone, what is their ace in the hole? And if Democrats tried to out law it they would lose their office as they would lose the support from their base.

So that leaves us at a virtual stalemate. Maybe the real solution is to take the politics out of abortion. I mean, what does it really say about our society, that women get pregnant, decide they just don't want the baby, so they have it terminated? I know, not all women do so simply because they do not want inconvenienced, but a lot do. What does that really say about us? Maybe it is time we as a society started taking responsibility. No more of this ******** "Teach abstinence!" Lets teach responsibility. Teach kids to use birth control, to actually think about their actions and consequences. Make it more easily accessible to kids. See what that does to abortion rates.

I agree with everything you said.

[Luca]

I have a question about this, maybe anyone can answer. Like I said up there in my First Post, I don't talk about this. But, Is a child punishment? Is human life so utterly disgusting, that you would call human life a punishment?

Prison time, is punishment. 10 Slashes is punishment, detention is punishment, and suspension without pay is punishment. How is a child punishment?

I leave this thread now, but I would like to hear an answer on that.

Okay, maybe that was badly phrased because I took a more general approach. I didn't mean for it to sound so harsh, just that an unplanned kid can be an inconvenience.

[lazur]

Pro-Life. Pro-Choice. Discuss.

Pro-life, but I do not believe legislation should be used to regulate it.

Also, there are circumstances under which any woman would be justified in getting an abortion, such as rape or incest.

That being said, I'm tired of abortion clinics pushing abortion onto our society, and I'm tired of the messaging used in order to encourage women to seek abortion.

If a woman goes in for an abortion, she should be required to see a counselor first, and that counselor should educate her on the consequences of abortion (ie, health issues such as being rendered infertile, mental issues such as depression and regret, and so on).

There are advertisements all day long on TV for new drugs, and at the end of every commercial they outline 10 or so potential side-effects. Yet a 16 year old girl can go in for an abortion without any medical consultation whatsoever...

No one should be pushing abortion as though it's the best alternative. The physical, psychological and mental impacts are FAR worse than most people realize...

But it also shouldn't be illegal.

[Addendum]

It's not like abortion clinics are making every woman get an abortion. Abortion existed long before Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics opened up. They simply made the procedure more sanitary.

[10CentAdventure]

Surprised at the civility of this thread. Pro-Lifers usually high jack and flame these sorts of things.

Personally I'm against abortion. I also have a penis and will never know a damn thing about the birth process emotionally and physically. That said I think it should be safe and legal. I don't feel that the state has the right to impose itself on the individual and I agree with the legal argument made in Roe V. Wade.

Right to lifers too often use religion as reason against abortion that right there almost makes me want to get an abortion for my brain. Religion can dictate our politics but not our policies.

[Trainwreck2100]

What i don't get is if a woman has all the say in whether or not to have an abortion, and the father doesn't. Why does he still have to pay child support if his baby mama decides to keep the baby.

[Addendum]

Because no one likes whiny men

[Killgore]

double post

[Killgore]

Christian ProLifer's riddle me this: isn't God pro choice? Not just on abortion, but on everything? Isn't free will what God's all about?

[Killgore]

What most don't realize is that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s reduced crime in the 1990s. The logic is simple: unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to be criminals, and legalized abortion reduces the number of unwanted children. Consequently, legalized abortion lowers crime in the future.

[Kurosawa]

I'm Pro-Choice, but every time this proceedure has happened or even been contemplated cannot be fairly seen as anything but tragic, imo.

[MattBearPig]

Personally, I don't think men have any right to tell a woman what she should do with her body. Hence, I'm very pro-choice.

[hammy]

Okay, here's my take on it. I am a woman, so pregnancy is a subject that I am acutely aware of.

Women already have a choice and every right to exercise it. They have the choice not to become pregnant in the first place. Becoming pregnant is the easiest thing in the world to do, but it's not something that can happen "at any time." There is actually a very small window of opportunity each month where pregnancy can occur. That is where women should be exercising their choice; not to become pregnant in the first place.

I do not agree at all with the pro-abortion argument that it's "her" body. Quite clearly it is not her body. If it were her body than the abortion wouldn't be necessary. It's clearly someone else's body. And that someone else has no say, no "choice," in any of this. They had no say about being conceived in the first place (as both parents most certainly did) and they have no say in being terminated, either. That's why I take issue with the term, "choice."

Also, with abortion on demand there is no room for the father. He apparently has no"choice." If he wanted to keep and care for the baby, he has no legal argument to do so. It is all up to the woman. I don't see this as appropriate since it clearly took two people to create the baby. The decision to kill it shouldn't be left to only one.

I do not support government interference in our lives, but with the issue of protecting the unborn, I don't see how it can be avoided. The real purpose of government is to protect it's citizens and do collectively what we can not do individually. The government should not be involved in social issues to the extent it is today. However, just as we look to the government to protect the rights of citizens regarding discrimination, etc. we would look to them to protect the rights of the unborn who have no 'choice.'

[Marx]

Surprised at the civility of this thread. Pro-Lifers usually high jack and flame these sorts of things.

Personally I'm against abortion. I also have a penis and will never know a damn thing about the birth process emotionally and physically. That said I think it should be safe and legal. I don't feel that the state has the right to impose itself on the individual and I agree with the legal argument made in Roe V. Wade.

Right to lifers too often use religion as reason against abortion that right there almost makes me want to get an abortion for my brain. Religion can dictate our politics but not our policies.

Let's all hope it stays that way. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[StrainedEyes]

Also, with abortion on demand there is no room for the father. He apparently has no"choice." If he wanted to keep and care for the baby, he has no legal argument to do so. It is all up to the woman. I don't see this as appropriate since it clearly took two people to create the baby. The decision to kill it shouldn't be left to only one.


You don't think that the woman going through 9 months of raging hormones, carrying this thing around day in and day out, dealing with all the physical burden, culminating in one of the more painful experiences someone can go though, gives them a slight edge over the guy in whether or not they want to go through with it?

You're right, they shouldn't be getting knocked up if they both don't want to, but **** happens.

[hammy]

You don't think that the woman going through 9 months of raging hormones, carrying this thing around day in and day out, dealing with all the physical burden, culminating in one of the more painful experiences someone can go though, gives them a slight edge over the guy in whether or not they want to go through with it?


No.

Unless of course he has relinquished any interest in the matter.

[Marx]

I am pro-choice.

[SuBe]

I am pro-choice.
Thanks for Sharing Marxie.

[Marx]

Thanks for Sharing Marxie.

I just realized that I created the thread and hadn't said where I stand. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[SuBe]

I just realized that I created the thread and hadn't said where I stand. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif
I was waiting since yesterday to know how you feel. Marxie, will you have my abortion?

[Marx]

I was waiting since yesterday to know how you feel. Marxie, will you have my abortion?

As a man, I don't see how or why I should have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

[Heretic]

As a man, I find reproduction laws a little wack.

If I get a girl pregnant, and want nothing to do with the baby in any way shape or form, then she can sue me and I will have to pay child support for 18 years.

If I decide that I want to raise the child and love it and be a wonderful father, and she decides to abort it, then I have no fatherly rights whatsoever.

I understand the whole "she gives birth" argument, but it still seems a little unfair.

However...I have never had to worry about this issue...because as Casey said, it doesnt take a genius to avoid a pregnancy. I dont want kids, and there has never been any real risk of me having a kid. I properly use condoms (or in a few long term relationships my girlfriend has used the pill). I never worry about becoming an unexpected father or whether or not id have to consider the talk of abortion...because Im not an idiot. Once again...this is a case of taking personal responsibility over my own life and actions instead of acting reckless and stupid and then looking for a way out.

That said, I am pro choice...mostly because I think that this is an argument that will split the country in half forever, so Id rather just side with the current laws rather than overturn them. However, I do challenge the pro choice movement to FINALLY actually live up to their claims and make the procedure safe. Its insulting that the pro choicers have battled against every measure of making the procedure safe for its patients...and it shows that money is their goal, not "choice".

[hammy]

As a man, I don't see how or why I should have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

As I said in my post, it's not her own body. If it was, an abortion wouldn't be necessary.

As a man, I find reproduction laws a little wack.

If I get a girl pregnant, and want nothing to do with the baby in any way shape or form, then she can sue me and I will have to pay child support for 18 years.

If I decide that I want to raise the child and love it and be a wonderful father, and she decides to abort it, then I have no fatherly rights whatsoever.


Exactly. It's completely unfair and sexist.

[Gilpesh]

As I said in my post, it's not her own body. If it was, an abortion wouldn't be necessary.

Um... it's her body. The fetus just feeds off her.

[Marx]

As I said in my post, it's not her own body. If it was, an abortion wouldn't be necessary.

The embryo/fetus is being held within her body and could not survive outside her body. The embryo/fetus relies on the mother for survival and are joined as one as a result. They are not two separate beings.

[hammy]

The embryo/fetus is being held within her body and could not survive outside her body. The embryo/fetus relies on the mother for survival and are joined as one as a result. They are not two separate beings.

The certainly are. They fetus has it's own brain, heart and even blood type. Yes, she is a 'host' to the child, but it is it's own person. If it weren't it's own person, it if were a part of her body, she wouldn't be seeking to abort it.

[Heretic]

The embryo/fetus is being held within her body and could not survive outside her body. The embryo/fetus relies on the mother for survival and are joined as one as a result. They are not two separate beings.


Under this logic, any time a human being is injured and cannot survive without the help of a machine then they are no longer a human being. I agree with the basic stance of pro choice, but in many cases the mother could die in an accident and doctors could save teh fetus and it would survive and grow old and live a full life, which is essentially no different from me being saved by doctors when my lungs gave out as a baby and I needed help to survive.

[Marx]

The certainly are. They fetus has it's own brain, heart and even blood type. Yes, she is a 'host' to the child, but it is it's own person. If it weren't it's own person, it if were a part of her body, she wouldn't be seeking to abort it.

Under this logic, any time a human being is injured and cannot survive without the help of a machine then they are no longer a human being. I agree with the basic stance of pro choice, but in many cases the mother could die in an accident and doctors could save teh fetus and it would survive and grow old and live a full life, which is essentially no different from me being saved by doctors when my lungs gave out as a baby and I needed help to survive.

It all comes down to when you consider it a child. Do you consider it a child from conception, the first heartbeat, or once it is physically born?

[Heretic]

It all comes down to when you consider it a child. Do you consider it a child from conception, the first heartbeat, or once it is physically born?

My opinion on when it becomes a human life hardly matters. I think its ridiculous to concider a third trimester pregnancy anything other than a human life since you actually have to go in and physically kill the baby for it to not live. You know, the whole, stick your hands in, turn the baby around, pull it out fet first and reveal all of it but the face and then jab it in the back of the head and suck its brains nonsense...yeah...thats a human life youre killing. I'm not going to pretend to be the final judge on exactly WHEN it becomes a human life, so I would rather it be kept legal unless there was some way to scientifically prove otherwise.

[Marx]

My opinion on when it becomes a human life hardly matters. I think its ridiculous to concider a third trimester pregnancy anything other than a human life since you actually have to go in and physically kill the baby for it to not live. You know, the whole, stick your hands in, turn the baby around, pull it out fet first and reveal all of it but the face and then jab it in the back of the head and suck its brains nonsense...yeah...thats a human life youre killing. I'm not going to pretend to be the final judge on exactly WHEN it becomes a human life, so I would rather it be kept legal unless there was some way to scientifically prove otherwise.

It does matter when you consider it to be a child, because that is what your view on the subject stems from.

For the record, I oppose late-term abortion. (Unless it is being done for the safety of the mother.)

[lazur]

Fortunately for me, I was born before 1970 and I had two parents who actually didn't consider me a mistake (much to the dismay of some Hype posters here, I'm sure heheh).

That being said, I was born 3 1/2 months early - early enough (2nd trimester) to have still been aborted had I been born in 1974 after Roe V. Wade passed...

Late term abortion should be outlawed. If a women wants an abortion, give her a four week window in which to get one from the date of conception. That's plenty of time to a) learn you're pregnant and b) decide if you want to keep it. If a woman goes beyond four weeks, tough luck, the window has closed and her next option is adoption if she doesn't want it.

[SuBe]

It all comes down to when you consider it a child. Do you consider it a child from conception, the first heartbeat, or once it is physically born?
I'm going to go with, when it starts to support the FairTax, then it is a person.




OH!!!:wow::wow::wow:



:hehe:

[SuBe]

Fortunately for me, I was born before 1970 and I had two parents who actually didn't consider me a mistake (much to the dismay of some Hype posters here, I'm sure heheh).

That being said, I was born 3 1/2 months early - early enough (2nd trimester) to have still been aborted had I been born in 1974 after Roe V. Wade passed...

Late term abortion should be outlawed. If a women wants an abortion, give her a four week window in which to get one from the date of conception. That's plenty of time to a) learn you're pregnant and b) decide if you want to keep it. If a woman goes beyond four weeks, tough luck, the window has closed and her next option is adoption if she doesn't want it.
I will agree, this to me seems like a fair "comprimise" for the Anti-Abortion folk. 4 weeks is plenty of time to think about it.

[Mr Sparkle]

Late term abortion should be outlawed. If a women wants an abortion, give her a four week window in which to get one from the date of conception. That's plenty of time to a) learn you're pregnant and b) decide if you want to keep it. If a woman goes beyond four weeks, tough luck, the window has closed and her next option is adoption if she doesn't want it.

my thoughts exactly.

[The Chairman]

Mine as well.

[Marx]

I'm going to go with, when it starts to support the FairTax, then it is a person.




OH!!!:wow::wow::wow:



:hehe:

Add another thread to the 'FAIRTAX BY SUPERMANBEYOND' comment club. :oldrazz:

my thoughts exactly.

Mine as well.

I oppose late-term abortion as well, but I do not agree with it being outlawed. The only exception that I agree with is if the mother's life is in danger.

Since you guys believe it should be outlawed, does this also mean that you would be willing to let the mother die so that the baby could live?(Honest question.)

[The Chairman]

Since you guys believe it should be outlawed, does this also mean that you would be willing to let the mother die so that the baby could live?(Honest question.)

No. I agre that the mother's health should be the ONLY exception for partial birth abortion. Other than that, I don't condone its practice.

[Franklin Richards]

If we called the Death Penalty, Very Late Term Abortions, would conservatives be against it?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Tron5000]

If we called the Death Penalty, Very Late Term Abortions, would conservatives be against it?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

See, the death penalty is a "penalty" on crimes that one has committed. What crime has an unborn child committed? Kicking too hard on mommy's tummy?

[The Senator]

See, the death penalty is a "penalty" on crimes that one has committed. What crime has an unborn child committed? Kicking too hard on mommy's tummy?

But you still support killing someone... and if you consider abortion 'murder,' then how is the death penalty not state-sponsored 'murder'?

[The Chairman]

I think both abortion and the Death Penalty are necessary evils in certain situations. I do agree that it makes no sense to be pro-life and anti-death penalty or vice versa. I support both depending on the circumstances.

[lazur]

But you still support killing someone... and if you consider abortion 'murder,' then how is the death penalty not state-sponsored 'murder'?

It's obviously subjective, and not a topic of discussion on which two opposing views will suddenly merge into agreement, so I'm not sure how productive it is to attempt to draw parallels between two completely different things.

From my perspective, the degree of 'crime' bears directly against 'justice,' and therefore the 'punishment' should match. One could argue that governments are not committing 'murder' when inflicting the death penalty because it's 'society's justice,' as determined by law, for a crime committed against it. In other words, the state isn't 'murdering' someone - the state is 'penalizing' a criminal to the degree determined that matches the crime. Some states wimp out and refuse to take it to the exact degree, but I feel they should. Commit murder, you die. Simple as that.

Or that's how it should be, imo ...

[Marx]

It's obviously subjective, and not a topic of discussion on which two opposing views will suddenly merge into agreement, so I'm not sure how productive it is to attempt to draw parallels between two completely different things.

From my perspective, the degree of 'crime' bears directly against 'justice,' and therefore the 'punishment' should match. One could argue that governments are not committing 'murder' when inflicting the death penalty because it's 'society's justice,' as determined by law, for a crime committed against it. In other words, the state isn't 'murdering' someone - the state is 'penalizing' a criminal to the degree determined that matches the crime. Some states wimp out and refuse to take it to the exact degree, but I feel they should. Commit murder, you die. Simple as that.

Or that's how it should be, imo ...

The death penalty results in death which is caused by someone pulling a lever or injecting poison into someone else.. We can argue about semantics till the end of time, it is still murder. Someone is doing something that causes someone else to die. (Whether it is the result of 'justice' or not.)

[SentinelMind]

You're killing someone, but murder is a legal term, so death penalty isn't murder. But do you think we should kill/execute felons...that's the point of discussion.

[Marx]

You're killing someone, but murder is a legal term, so death penalty isn't murder. But do you think we should kill/execute felons...that's the point of discussion.

I believe that a crime which results in death, should be met with death. The argument that I was responding to, and that Jman asked someone else about, was the notion that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not.

[Franklin Richards]

The problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone ends up blind.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

See, the death penalty is a "penalty" on crimes that one has committed. What crime has an unborn child committed? Kicking too hard on mommy's tummy?



Original Sin according to Christians.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[lazur]

I believe that a crime which results in death, should be met with death. The argument that I was responding to, and that Jman asked someone else about, was the notion that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not.

The death penalty cannot be murder because the definitions of murder and execution do not match. Also, the word 'murder' exists expressly in law, as a means of describing a criminal act against another human being. The word 'murder' is, by nature, a willful act typically without provocation upon an innocent victim. A soldier does not 'murder' the enemy on the field - a soldier 'kills' or 'neutralizes' the enemy.

Murder:

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7. to commit murder.

Execution:

1. the act or process of executing.
2. the state or fact of being executed.
3. the infliction of capital punishment or, formerly, of any legal punishment.
4. the process of performing a judgment or sentence of a court: The judge stayed execution of the sentence pending appeal.
5. a mode or style of performance; technical skill, as in music: The pianist's execution of the sonata was consummate.
6. effective, usually destructive action, or the result attained by it (usually prec. by do): The grenades did rapid execution.
7. Law. a judicial writ directing the enforcement of a judgment.
8. Computers. the act of running, or the results of having run, a program or routine, or the performance of an instruction.

So, no, murder is not being committed when a criminal is being executed, no matter how you slice it.

[Handsome Rob]

Original Sin according to Christians.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

You might want to say some Christians. We don't all believe that children are born lost OR guilty of any sin.

[Addendum]

The problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone ends up blind.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Just the ones that break the law

[hammy]

But you still support killing someone... and if you consider abortion 'murder,' then how is the death penalty not state-sponsored 'murder'?

:whatever:

[danoyse]

Forget about the death penalty. What about the pro-lifers that blow up abortion clinics or shoot the doctors? That happens from time to time too.

I have no problem with the pro-life movement. I think it's important that there's a side to remind everyone that it is a life a woman is carrying, and to encourage them to use abortion only as a last resort. I just think the protesters parking themselves outside the clinics need to mind their own business.

When I was 16, my mom was taking me to the eye doctor...and there was a protest going on outside the building. Apparently there was a clinic in the same medical complex. As we were walking into the building, three of the protesters walked right up to my mom, pointed at me and said "Are you taking her for an abortion?"

It was probably the only time in my life I have ever seen my mother so close to slugging someone. She was livid. All she could say about it later was "What if I was?"

How can anyone have the nerve to intrude on people like that? What business is it of theirs? Since that day, I will absolutely not speak to any of these groups when I see them out protesting.

[C.F. Kane]

Pro-Life. Pro-Choice. Discuss.

I'm Pro-Let's-Find-a-Better-Issue-to-Whine-About-For-Decades-On-End.

[Marx]

I'm Pro-Let's-Find-a-Better-Issue-to-Whine-About-For-Decades-On-End.

This issue will never go away. That being said, care to say where you stand? :cwink:

[comicgirl]

Ok, point #1..."Pro-Life" is anti-abortion...period.........Pro Life doesn
t extend to all life Ex: people on deathrow,etc."

....Just the lives that guys like Dobsen and "Focus on the Family" choose as "valid". Sickening.

[Trainwreck2100]

I eat breakfast tacos outside of an abortion clinic occasionally i;ll see a demonstration and just laugh

[Mr Sparkle]

Since you guys believe it should be outlawed, does this also mean that you would be willing to let the mother die so that the baby could live?(Honest question.)

I think that a mother should be able to terminate her pregnancy if her life is in danger.
by the same token I think that she should be able to give her life in exchange for her baby if that is what she wishes.
believe it or not, some women would choose to give their babies life and die, rather than the baby die, by the simple logic of "at least I lived long enough to have a bay" I consider myself pro-choice, simply because of this.

[Mr Sparkle]

:whatever:

wow, what an eloquent argument.
when Jman first presented his argument I was all like....:wow:
but then you came along and I was all like..................:huh:
but of course I read your "smiley" and was all like.........:csad:
but then I thought "lame response" so I was all like.......:cmad:
eventually though I came to grips with it, so I'm like......:yay: :up:

[Carcharodon]

I believe that a crime which results in death, should be met with death.Manslaughter?

[Mikelus]

Why Americans can't close the abortion debate like in most advanced nations? Once you give a right, you don't take it back, is just a silly political game to gain some votes. If you take the right away, then you go backwards to a time when women had to go to clandestine clinics or do it themselves, risking their lives, some would go to Canada.... I don't think most Americans want that, is just absurd. In Europe people are more rational with social issues, is time the US does the same, reason should prevail.

[The Senator]

I believe that anyone who commits a crime should be imprisoned, no matter how severe that crime is. We as a society should not have a right to take life away from any living person.

lazur
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

I think that electrocuting people is inhumane and barbaric. So is shooting people via firing squad. Both of which we still do in this country, even though they are considered secondary execution methods.


In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Don't the courts premeditate these executions? The state decides who is going to die, how they are going to die, why they are going to die... that strikes me as "premeditated murder."

[danoyse]

Why Americans can't close the abortion debate like in most advanced nations? Once you give a right, you don't take it back, is just a silly political game to gain some votes. If you take the right away, then you go backwards to a time when women had to go to clandestine clinics or do it themselves, risking their lives, some would go to Canada.... I don't think most Americans want that, is just absurd. In Europe people are more rational with social issues, is time the US does the same, reason should prevail.

Which is exactly why I believe Roe v. Wade cannot be overturned. Women will still have them if they're desperate enough.

Something Palin said on her ABC interview was that we should be encouraging adoption as an alternative. This is something I agree with, although I have a friend who went through years of infertility issues who decided to adopt--as long as they got a healthy white baby. So where does that leave all of the other kids?

Unfortunately adoption leaves a lot of unwanted kids out there.

[Sentinel X]

Pallin doesn't support abortion even in cases of rape and incest...now that is ****ing insane. So I guess if a 14 year old girl gets molested by her father and gets preggers, she cannot have an abortion, huh?...:whatever:

I think Roe v Wade was such an important supreme court case, a woman has the right to make a choice. If I was a woman and I was to have a baby, I wouldn't do an abortion (assuming no incest or rape) but not all people are the same. Its that simple...why is there still debate?

[SentinelMind]

Pallin doesn't support abortion even in cases of rape and incest...now that is ****ing insane. So I guess if a 14 year old girl gets molested by her father and gets preggers, she cannot have an abortion, huh?...:whatever:

I think Roe v Wade was such an important supreme court case, a woman has the right to make a choice. If I was a woman and I was to have a baby, I wouldn't do an abortion (assuming no incest or rape) but not all people are the same. Its that simple...why is there still debate?

Because some people think its killing. And some others, including the former group, think the US Constitution is silent on abortion and that abortion should be decided by state legislators, not by Judicial branch.
Saying that some people disagree on something therefore we should allow it is like saying we should legalize everything because some people might like doing that illegal thing.

[The Senator]

[/B]

Because some people think its killing. And some others, including the former group, think the US Constitution is silent on abortion and that abortion should be decided by state legislators, not by Judicial branch.
Saying that some people disagree on something therefore we should allow it is like saying we should legalize everything because some people might like doing that illegal thing.

Just because some people think it should be illegal, doesn't mean it should be. Some people do not believe that a fetus is a fully-developed human being, and therefore terminating one's pregnancy is not murder. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that abortion is illegal, so I do not see how the courts overstepped their bounds on that one. The courts have a responsibility to set precedent; not every precedent can be traced back to the Constitution.

If we believe that states should get to decide everything, then why shouldn't we allow them to re-implement the Jim Crowe laws? Shouldn't states have a right to decide that?

[SentinelMind]

the 13th to 15th Amendments forbid institutionalized discrimination. Those were adopted through democratic process for amending the constitution. that's probably something the pro-choice movement should consider if they want to assert a constitutional right to an abortion.

[The Senator]

the 13th to 15th Amendments forbid institutionalized discrimination. Those were adopted through democratic process for amending the constitution. that's probably something the pro-choice movement should consider if they want to assert a constitutional right to an abortion.

They do have a constitutional right to abortion, though.

The Supreme Court, established within the Constitution, made a ruling. It set the precedent. Therefore, women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, and it is guaranteed by the framework for the Courts as set by the Constitution.

[StrainedEyes]

According to Law and Order, my source for laws. A newborn is not a person, by law, until it takes its first breath. I think that should stay the way it is, and abortion should not be governed.

[SentinelMind]

Well, they do now...it is set as precedent and Courts do try to respect precedent, but they don't have to if they feel the decision was wrongly decided. Plessy v Ferguson was precedent...."separate but equal" deemed consistent with the constitution and was the law of the land until Brown v Board of Education. that just shows you the US Supreme Court can make mistakes and that the source of civil rights and human rights in this coutnry didn't exist simply through the Judicial Branch.

[fluffysellscars]

I would just like to point out that outrage over late-term abortions is, for the most part, completely unnecessary. About 0.02% of abortions are performed at 5 months or later, and 0.004% are performed after 6 months (source (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html)). There is not, and has never been, an outpouring of women who choose late term abortions for convenience, and it is nearly impossible to find a doctor who will perform an abortion after 5 months for anything other than health reasons.

If a woman goes in for an abortion, she should be required to see a counselor first, and that counselor should educate her on the consequences of abortion (ie, health issues such as being rendered infertile, mental issues such as depression and regret, and so on).

...

No one should be pushing abortion as though it's the best alternative. The physical, psychological and mental impacts are FAR worse than most people realize...

There is no evidence that abortion significantly affects either physical (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/abortion/AN00633) health (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage) or mental (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4553533.ece) health (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/health/research/13brfs-ABORTIONDOES_BRF.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). I don't want to be a link peddler, but it bothers me when people constantly state that abortion harms women as an indisputable fact.

As a man, I find reproduction laws a little wack.

If I get a girl pregnant, and want nothing to do with the baby in any way shape or form, then she can sue me and I will have to pay child support for 18 years.

If I decide that I want to raise the child and love it and be a wonderful father, and she decides to abort it, then I have no fatherly rights whatsoever.

I understand the whole "she gives birth" argument, but it still seems a little unfair.

I agree with this completely, and think it deserves consideration. This isn't a popular opinion among fellow women, but I find abortion and child support laws completely contradictory. In my opinion, men should not have a say in whether a woman gets an abortion, nor should they have to pay child support if she chooses to have a child that neither of them planned on having. The residence of the fetus in the woman's body makes it her responsibility either way.

[Sentinel X]

[/b]

Because some people think its killing. And some others, including the former group, think the US Constitution is silent on abortion and that abortion should be decided by state legislators, not by Judicial branch.
Saying that some people disagree on something therefore we should allow it is like saying we should legalize everything because some people might like doing that illegal thing.That was actually a rhetorical question :o

[danoyse]

If a woman goes in for an abortion, she should be required to see a counselor first, and that counselor should educate her on the consequences of abortion (ie, health issues such as being rendered infertile, mental issues such as depression and regret, and so on).


This is such an incredibly ignorant statement. No one should be "required" to see a counselor before having an abortion. Should a counselor be available? Sure. But women shouldn't be required to see one. Most women have thought long and hard about making this decision (and believe me there, I know women who've had them), and their decision should be respected. It's really no one's business but their own.

I don't see men being required to see a counselor before being voluntarily rendered infertile by a vasectomy. But women even get hassled at some pharmacies just for picking up birth control. It's ridiculous.

[The Senator]

If a woman goes in for an abortion, she should be required to see a counselor first, and that counselor should educate her on the consequences of abortion (ie, health issues such as being rendered infertile, mental issues such as depression and regret, and so on).

Yeah, because women aren't intelligent enough to research abortion practices themselves, or make well-informed decisions on their own. They need a doctor to force feed them all the potential consequences of their actions, because there is simply no way on Earth they would have read up on the consequences, or discuss what affects they would experience with their gynecologist or any other doctor.

I thought you were for less government control... or is that just when that government control interferes with your own convictions? :huh:

[cerealkiller182]

Why Americans can't close the abortion debate like in most advanced nations? Once you give a right, you don't take it back, is just a silly political game to gain some votes. If you take the right away, then you go backwards to a time when women had to go to clandestine clinics or do it themselves, risking their lives, some would go to Canada.... I don't think most Americans want that, is just absurd. In Europe people are more rational with social issues, is time the US does the same, reason should prevail.

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marx]

*bump*

[Handsome Rob]

According to Law and Order, my source for laws. A newborn is not a person, by law, until it takes its first breath. I think that should stay the way it is, and abortion should not be governed.

So theoretically, I could deliver a full-term baby completely out of the mother, and as long as I keep my hand over its mouth and nose and prevent it from ever taking a breath, it's not a person? :csad:

[SentinelMind]

Why Americans can't close the abortion debate like in most advanced nations? Once you give a right, you don't take it back, is just a silly political game to gain some votes. If you take the right away, then you go backwards to a time when women had to go to clandestine clinics or do it themselves, risking their lives, some would go to Canada.... I don't think most Americans want that, is just absurd. In Europe people are more rational with social issues, is time the US does the same, reason should prevail.

So I take it you support giving the unborn the right to live? Since you're all about "giving rights."

[The Senator]

So I take it you support giving the unborn the right to live? Since you're all about "giving rights."

Except women have the right to choose, as determined by the Supreme Court. What he is arguing is that the Supreme Court should not overturn Roe v. Wade, as it will be rescinding a right that all women currently have. It would be one of the few Supreme Court cases which have actually taken rights away from the American people.

[Marx]

There was a pro-life demonstration outside my town's Democratic headquarters today. Adults protesting WITH their children (who were holding signs.) They were also holding the 'TRUE christians consider the unborn, vote pro-life' signs that are scattered about town. It was rather disturbing.

[SentinelMind]

There was a pro-life demonstration outside my town's Democratic headquarters today. Adults protesting WITH their children (who were holding signs.) They were also holding the 'TRUE christians consider the unborn, vote pro-life' signs that are scattered about town. It was rather disturbing.

What's disturbing about protesting with signs? Was there any violence or abuse in these protest?

[Marx]

What's disturbing about protesting with signs? Was there any violence or abuse in these protest?

I find it disturbing when parents bring their children out with them to protest and the children are the ones holding the signs.

[Nitehawk013]

Hmm. Magical disappearing posts this morning

[danoyse]

There was a pro-life demonstration outside my town's Democratic headquarters today. Adults protesting WITH their children (who were holding signs.) They were also holding the 'TRUE christians consider the unborn, vote pro-life' signs that are scattered about town. It was rather disturbing.

I interned for a news network in college, and we covered an abortion protest that was being held outside a medical conference. They were claiming that attendees at this conference included a group who created a 'morning after' drug that aborted babies.

They were told to stay outside the hotel if they wanted to protest. But they came marching in anyway. So they were all arrested for trespassing, including
the protest leader's 12-year-old son. They put the kid in handcuffs, and he looked absolutely terrified. The dad didn't say a word to him as it happened. I'll never forget it.

We interviewed a doctor later about the drug, and found out it's just another form of birth control. It's not an "abortion drug"--no child is conceived if you're on it. In fact, her first reaction when we told her what they were saying the drug did was a loud "WHAT?!?!"

So the guy let his kid get arrested over a drug that they didn't know anything about. What a dad. :whatever:

[danoyse]

Note - Nitehawk's comment wasn't worth repeating.


That is ridiculous and offensive. It's amazing someone can such a pro-life view, and yet have so little regard for life. :whatever:

[Marx]

I interned for a news network in college, and we covered an abortion protest that was being held outside a medical conference. They were claiming that attendees at this conference included a group who created a 'morning after' drug that aborted babies.

They were told to stay outside the hotel if they wanted to protest. But they came marching in anyway. So they were all arrested for trespassing, including
the protest leader's 12-year-old son. They put the kid in handcuffs, and he looked absolutely terrified. The dad didn't say a word to him as it happened. I'll never forget it.

We interviewed a doctor later about the drug, and found out it's just another form of birth control. It's not an "abortion drug"--no child is conceived if you're on it. In fact, her first reaction when we told her what they were saying the drug did was a loud "WHAT?!?!"

So the guy let his kid get arrested over a drug that they didn't know anything about. What a dad. :whatever:

I'm all for having the right to protest so long as it is intelligent and peaceful. In my opinion, there is no excuse to bring a child to protest. No excuse.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nope. None.

I think mainstream America has really decided on this issue.

Until Sarah Palin brought the issue back to the table, apparently.

[Bill]

Which is exactly why I believe Roe v. Wade cannot be overturned. Women will still have them if they're desperate enough.

Something Palin said on her ABC interview was that we should be encouraging adoption as an alternative. This is something I agree with, although I have a friend who went through years of infertility issues who decided to adopt--as long as they got a healthy white baby. So where does that leave all of the other kids?

Unfortunately adoption leaves a lot of unwanted kids out there.

You wouldn't believe the red tape and hoops to jump through to adopt. My wife and I, after doing so and noting the teen mothers, unwanted kids and basic apathy which mothers exhibit from being able to have kids at their leisure, began to wonder if everyone was subjected to a system which delves into every single aspect of your life, including your past, to see if you are a fit parent, would there still be so many unwanted children or even children with discipline problems.

Adoption is not an easy process. Domestic adoption, even after going through it and paying out the money for the mother to have the child, does not guarantee you will get the baby. The mother can still change her mind, and you have no recourse. We went to China for that reason.

I think that if being a parent was a likewise difficult process in which each and every prospective parent was screened for their fitness as a parent, there would be less unwanted children.

[Nivek]

what i dont understand is the paperwork you have to go through to adopt a kid. I have personal experience seeing the hoops of fire prospective parents have to go through to get a kid through adoption. Reviewing financial history, background checks, usually there is a significant fee involved somewhere, ect.

But any worthless man/woman couple can just get pregnant and pop out kids without any of the same crap as long as the woman in the relationship brings the child to term because they think it's a god given right to procreate. I believe you should be approved and licensed to have children, and require to show at certain checkpoints to be reviewed to make sure the parents are taking care of that child within their abilities. If not, the kid can be removed from that negative environment and given to a more capable family. And any pro-life advocate should agree with that, because caring about the welfare of children shouldn't stop at birth.

And they shouldn't be able to say a damn thing about the government interfering in a parents life if they are anti-abortion. Being able to destroy life of a born child should be taken as seriously as a mother aborting a fetus, if not more so. A born child is more important public investment than a collection of unborn tissue. The born child already has the ability to grow up and harm people as an angry criminal, and then we have to kill him when the worthless hatefull piece of crap sprays trick or treaters with gunfire.

[danoyse]

You wouldn't believe the red tape and hoops to jump through to adopt. My wife and I, after doing so and noting the teen mothers, unwanted kids and basic apathy which mothers exhibit from being able to have kids at their leisure, began to wonder if everyone was subjected to a system which delves into every single aspect of your life, including your past, to see if you are a fit parent, would there still be so many unwanted children or even children with discipline problems.

Adoption is not an easy process. Domestic adoption, even after going through it and paying out the money for the mother to have the child, does not guarantee you will get the baby. The mother can still change her mind, and you have no recourse. We went to China for that reason.

I think that if being a parent was a likewise difficult process in which each and every prospective parent was screened for their fitness as a parent, there would be less unwanted children.

I totally believe it. My friend tried to adopt, and the teenage mother changed her mind just after the baby was born. They'd flown to the birth mother's city, were at the hospital when he was born, only to have him taken away from them by a 15-year-old who had to borrow cab fare to get home from the hospital.

We heard later she sent the baby off to another adoption agency a month later, after she realized that having a baby is hard.

My friend has since had several children (it's amazing, for years she couldn't have kids, then she couldn't stop), but she said she still worries about that one they lost.

Adoption is not the magical solution everyone thinks it is. It should be, but it's not.

[psychocheeseman]

Adoption is not the magical solution everyone thinks it is. It should be, but it's not.

I agree - I personally don't believe abortion is in anyway a violation of human rights, but for emotional reasons only i'd say adoption would be preferable.

However - adoption is not a solution to any problems people have with abortion. Seeing a pregnancy through develops strong emotional bonds with the mother who may decide to keep the child instead of adopting or be emotionally scared as a result of giving the child up.

Considering world wide overpopulation, contraceptives are by far the best prevention.

[comicgirl]

Nope. None.

I think mainstream America has really decided on this issue.

Until Sarah Palin brought the issue back to the table, apparently.Well, she holds up her Downs baby as "proof" that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Look at me, look at me! I would love to pose this question: Gov. Palin, you chose to continue your pregnancy......would you take that right away from all other women?

The whole moniker "Pro-life" is slightly misleading. Are they protesting outside of jails when executions are held??.... Nope. You can't pick and choose......Call yourselves anti-abortionists and be done with it.

[Carcharodon]

The whole moniker "Pro-life" is slightly misleading. Are they protesting outside of jails when executions are held??.... Nope. You can't pick and choose......Call yourselves anti-abortionists and be done with it.Precisely. It's as ridiculous as calling somebody pro-abortion.

[SentinelMind]

Well, she holds up her Downs baby as "proof" that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Look at me, look at me! I would love to pose this question: Gov. Palin, you chose to continue your pregnancy......would you take that right away from all other women?

This argument never makes sense to me, no matter how often its repeated. If I think something should be illegal, and I choose not to do something illegal, that makes me a hypocrite? So I oppose legalizing cocaine, I'm a hypocrite for choosing not to do cocaine? You're just arguing and underlining semantics.


The whole moniker "Pro-life" is slightly misleading. Are they protesting outside of jails when executions are held??.... Nope. You can't pick and choose......Call yourselves anti-abortionists and be done with it.

Some of those people are against executions. But those who support executions believe you forfeit life once you commit a heinious act. The terminated life committed no act.

[danoyse]

Well, she holds up her Downs baby as "proof" that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Look at me, look at me! I would love to pose this question: Gov. Palin, you chose to continue your pregnancy......would you take that right away from all other women?


Well, I enjoy how they take the word "choice" away from any discussion about it. It's always referred to as "the decision." They used the same thing regarding her daughter's pregnancy. She "decided" to keep the baby. They're proud of her "decision."

There was even a sketch by the Daily Show during the RNC when Samantha Bee kept trying to get any of them to say "choice". They wouldn't do it. :whatever:

[Marx]

Precisely. It's as ridiculous as calling somebody pro-abortion.

Exactly. There is NO ONE who is pro-abortion.

[SentinelMind]

Well, I enjoy how they take the word "choice" away from any discussion about it. It's always referred to as "the decision." They used the same thing regarding her daughter's pregnancy. She "decided" to keep the baby. They're proud of her "decision."

There was even a sketch by the Daily Show during the RNC when Samantha Bee kept trying to get any of them to say "choice". They wouldn't do it.

Because they're playing the silly semantics and linguistic game of the pro-abortion...I mean pro-choice movement. See my last post above, how the argument over the word "choice" is inane.

Exactly. There is NO ONE who is pro-abortion.

There must be someone who is pro-abortion if millions and millions of abortions have happened since Roe v Wade.

[Franklin Richards]

Here in Texas life is sacred until you are born. Then it's execution time.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[danoyse]

Exactly. There is NO ONE who is pro-abortion.

Exactly. The people having abortions are people who didn't want to get pregnant in the first place, or people who have no other choice because of a health issue. "Pro-abortion" sounds like they got pregnant just to get rid of the baby. No one wants to have to put themselves through that.

I'm pro-choice, and that means I'm favor of a woman's right to privacy in making that decision on her own. I don't like it, but it's not my place to tell them how to live their lives.

When I was 16, my mom and I were stopped by a anti-abortion group outside a doctor's office. One of them pointed at me and asked my mother if she was taking me for an abortion. She was taking me to an eye doctor appointment.

It was the closest I've ever seen my mom to slugging someone. I remember her telling my dad afterwards, "What if I was? What ***** business was it of theirs where I was taking my kid??"

I never forgot that. It is never my place to step into someone's business like that. That right to privacy needs to be protected.

[Marx]

There must be someone who is pro-abortion if millions and millions of abortions have happened since Roe v Wade.

Come on, Sent. Pro-Choice does not mean that you advocate abortion. Pro-Choice means that you believe the option of abortion should be there.

[Kurosawa]

Here in Texas life is sacred until you are born. Then it's execution time.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

:funny:

[The Battousai]

Here in Texas life is sacred until you are born. Then it's execution time.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

EDITED - inappropriate video/language.

[The Senator]

I still find it incredibly hypocritical that some posters here who are "pro-life" are staunch advocates of the death penalty...

[Nivek]

Well, I consider myself Pro-Death, because I believe in...

-Womans right to have an Abortion

- Advocate the Death Penalty as it should be, as a necessary tool for putting down dangerous individuals who are an unrepentant danger to other people and society because of their lack of respect for human life.

- believe in adult euthanasia as choice when faced with dire health. I also dont believe in doctors letting people "live" with severe brain injuries.

At least I'm honest about my views. I've seen too many people pussy-foot around the topics. I believe the choice to terminate a pregnancy begins and ends with that couple, but the final say belongs to the woman. Anyone saying otherwise should offer alternatives, but never interfere with someones decision. rthat is thier burden. I've been in a commited relationship for 12 years, so I have had to face this possible situation a couple times.

This is also an area where I'm distinctly not Liberal or Conservative, especially in regards to the lax Death Penalty. Of course people don't think it works when pieces of trash that would kill you in a second get 10-20 years of appeals and live a lifetime longer than some of their victims in comparison. and tax payers feed, cloth, and shelter these killers till they run out of chances and get put down.

And I think people with Terminal Illness should have a choice for a painless, dignified death . If you don't believe in it, you dont have to do it. But after seeing more than one Family member waste away in severe pain waiting for their "natural time" I would like to see other options.

I worked in a city Humane Society for 2 1/2 years, and it really grounded my belief system in life and death. I've seen people make more rational decisions about the health and welfare of their pets than they probably do about themselves. The Death Penalty thing has always driven a wedge with some of my more liberal friends, but dont you think it's odd that we contain killers, psychotics, and rapists that do not feel, respond, or emote and live for 15 years exploring every legal loophole to prolong their life. If you can't make them where they can "Turn it off" like soldiers have to, then put them down.

[RAMORE]

I still find it incredibly hypocritical that some posters here who are "pro-life" are staunch advocates of the death penalty...

Well there is sort of a big difference. One is an innocent life who deserves a chance to live and the other is someone who had their chance and screwed it up enough to get the death penalty.

[RAMORE]

The issue of abortion will be what loses the election for Obama.

[Nivek]

It's still life though. Thats the point, to call yourself Pro-LIFE and be for the death penalty. Just call yourselves Anti-Abortion, because you are more that by definition that than "Pro-Life".

[Nivek]

The issue of abortion will be what loses the election for Obama.


Ooh-ooh can I quote you on that?

Personally, I think the Economy will be what win's it for him, but it's interesting theory that Abortion will be the thing that sinks him.

[RAMORE]

Agreed but by that token the ridiculousness of Pro-choice comes to mind they should say Pro-death or Pro-myself regardless of who it hurts or how bad.

[RAMORE]

Ooh-ooh can I quote you on that?

Personally, I think the Economy will be what win's it for him, but it's interesting theory that Abortion will be the thing that sinks him.

You most certainly can. I agree with you if he wins the economy helped him sail through if he loses it's the abortion issue. All John has to do is stay close it's Obama's to win or lose really and it has been since he gave that speech a couple of years ago at the democratic national convention.

[The Senator]

Well there is sort of a big difference. One is an innocent life who deserves a chance to live and the other is someone who had their chance and screwed it up enough to get the death penalty.

How very Christian of you to think that we should be able to judge others and decide whether their lives are worth ending.

[RAMORE]

I didn't judge them their peers and our justice system did. Give that same right to a child about to be aborted and I would be happy. Put the mother on trial and ask is it because you can't afford the child, was it consentual, what are your motivations etc. It sounds ridiculous but think about it a murderer or child abuser has more rights than an unwanted baby. glad to see your following me around Jman I thought you stopped caring;)

[Bathead]

The thing about the death penalty that bothers me is with our less than perfect justice system, is the chance an innocent person could be executed. What about that innocent life? Do they not count because they're an adult? That, in my mind is the hypocrisy of a pro-life/pro-death penalty stand.

[Nivek]

I really think Palins opinion and practice of Abortion is what is sinking McCain (along with her failure to understand pretty much anything). Well, that and the circuis of Joe's, Jane's, and non-topics they put out into the media as talking points.

[Nivek]

The thing about the death penalty that bothers me is with our less than perfect justice system, is the chance an innocent person could be executed. What about that innocent life? Do they not count because they're an adult? That, in my mind is the hypocrisy of a pro-life/pro-death penalty stand.


well, I think Death Penalty cases should be reserved for mass murderers, premeditated murder, serial rapists and pedophiles, pretty much use as a tool to keep dangerous people from harming the population. We put mad dogs to sleep within 48 hours, we should do the same with hardcore cold killers.

For ever West Memphis 3 trial (which was heavily biased and should be retried without a doubt) there is a Susan Smith who is a cold heartless person who probobly would kill anyone else who stands in her way.

[Nitehawk013]

I really think Palins opinion and practice of Abortion is what is sinking McCain (along with her failure to understand pretty much anything). Well, that and the circuis of Joe's, Jane's, and non-topics they put out into the media as talking points.

If by sinking you mean tightening the polls and shrinking tha gap, then yes you are correct.

I still think McCain winning would be a miracle, but he has not been sinking for weeks now. He has been gaining.

[RAMORE]

^That's right!

[RAMORE]

The thing about the death penalty that bothers me is with our less than perfect justice system, is the chance an innocent person could be executed. What about that innocent life? Do they not count because they're an adult? That, in my mind is the hypocrisy of a pro-life/pro-death penalty stand.

Yeah it's a scary thing to think of that but no system is perfect. If they outlawed abortion tomorrow babies would still be aborted just not nearly as many.

[Nivek]

A 10 point difference in a presidential race where over the last 20 years it's been more of a 5 point difference says a lot. Most polls show Obama gaining.

Besides, after Tommorrow, when the people who have not been polled vote, we will see how much the polling numbers were off. Remember 2006? This is going to be even bigger. No one waited 4-8 hours to pre-vote in 2006.

[The Senator]

I didn't judge them their peers and our justice system did. Give that same right to a child about to be aborted and I would be happy. Put the mother on trial and ask is it because you can't afford the child, was it consentual, what are your motivations etc. It sounds ridiculous but think about it a murderer or child abuser has more rights than an unwanted baby. glad to see your following me around Jman I thought you stopped caring;)

But you support the death penalty, which means that you aren't accurately reflecting the strong Christian values you supposedly represent. After all, is it not a Christian philosophy that judgment is reserved for God? You are basically saying that their peers are on equal footing with God, considering we are allowed to end peoples' lives.

As for an aborted fetus... I don't consider a fetus to be a living human being until it is able to survive outside of the mother's womb on its own... so I do not see any loss of life in the abortion equation.

[Nitehawk013]

10 points? What are you reading? The NY Times?

Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby all had the race at 5 or less points seperating them. The poll among voters who vote every election had it a 1 pt Obama lead Friday. I haven't yet seen any of todays poll numbers.

[The Senator]

Not to mention, Ramore, you apparently support the death penalty for child molesters... which is astounding to me, considering you support taking life when none was lost in the first place...

[Nitehawk013]

But you support the death penalty, which means that you aren't accurately reflecting the strong Christian values you supposedly represent. After all, is it not a Christian philosophy that judgment is reserved for God? You are basically saying that their peers are on equal footing with God, considering we are allowed to end peoples' lives.

As for an aborted fetus... I don't consider a fetus to be a living human being until it is able to survive outside of the mother's womb on its own... so I do not see any loss of life in the abortion equation.

Murder was wrong throughout the Bible, OT or NT. However, death penalties were also enforced throughout the word because that is not murder. It is a justifiable penalty.

The death penalty enforces the value of human life, it doesn't devalue it. If you take a person's life, you will pay for it with your own bc that is the only thing you have thats valuable enough to make up for it. Years in prison? Not valuable enough for what you stole. You take a life, you surrender your own.

Again, word play to lessen the status of the baby to a fetus is a lame attempt at remitting guilt. No one says they are "carrying a fetus" when they find they are pregnant. They say "we are having a baby" because we all know thatis what it is. The fetus word use is some psycho babbling garbage to try to ease guilt over murdering your unborn child.

You should feel guilty. In fact you ought to be in prison or death row.

[Nivek]

You should feel guilty. In fact you ought to be in prison or death row.


Okay, time to step back before you cross the line between intelligent heated discussion and popping out of the wacko basket.

[The Senator]

Murder was wrong throughout the Bible, OT or NT. However, death penalties were also enforced throughout the word because that is not murder. It is a justifiable penalty.

The death penalty enforces the value of human life, it doesn't devalue it. If you take a person's life, you will pay for it with your own bc that is the only thing you have thats valuable enough to make up for it. Years in prison? Not valuable enough for what you stole. You take a life, you surrender your own.

Again, word play to lessen the status of the baby to a fetus is a lame attempt at remitting guilt. No one says they are "carrying a fetus" when they find they are pregnant. They say "we are having a baby" because we all know thatis what it is. The fetus word use is some psycho babbling garbage to try to ease guilt over murdering your unborn child.

You should feel guilty. In fact you ought to be in prison or death row.

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. The state is taking a life, and in doing so, they are going against the teachings of Christ and passing final judgment on to man. God is the only person who is supposed to take life; even if one of us were to murder someone else, we are not supposed to pass judgment on to the murderer.

It really disappoints me when a non-Christian such as my self knows more about the Christian faith than many of the Christians here... and actually represents many of the core Christian values in my personal convictions than many Christians here...

[The Senator]

Well... I should have been in prison a long time ago, considering I'm a homosexual Unitarian Universalist... damn multicultural BS...

[Nitehawk013]

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. The state is taking a life, and in doing so, they are going against the teachings of Christ and passing final judgment on to man. God is the only person who is supposed to take life; even if one of us were to murder someone else, we are not supposed to pass judgment on to the murderer.

It really disappoints me when a non-Christian such as my self knows more about the Christian faith than many of the Christians here... and actually represents many of the core Christian values in my personal convictions than many Christians here...

I'd say your understanding of the Bible is a bit flawed then flash.

God DEMANDED the death penalty for a number of sins. It was carried out as such. Jesus did not overturn the death penalty. For instance, the reason he would not allow the follow through of the death penalty of the woman caught in adultery was because those seekign to stone her were not followign the proper protocol of the Law. The law demanded that both the woman AND the man be stoned. They however had only sought to punish the woman, letting the man off the hook. That would have been unlawful. Jesus therefore trumped them by pointing out that they had all sinned and were not worthy to toss the stones.

Really, before you try to say you understand Christ better than Christians at least try to understand the contextual meanings of the scriptures. Not some limp wrist spin.

[The Senator]

I'd say your understanding of the Bible is a bit flawed then flash.

God DEMANDED the death penalty for a number of sins. It was carried out as such. Jesus did not overturn the death penalty. For instance, the reason he would not allow the follow through of the death penalty of the woman caught in adultery was because those seekign to stone her were not followign the proper protocol of the Law. The law demanded that both the woman AND the man be stoned. They however had only sought to punish the woman, letting the man off the hook. That would have been unlawful. Jesus therefore trumped them by pointing out that they had all sinned and were not worthy to toss the stones.

Really, before you try to say you understand Christ better than Christians at least try to understand the contextual meanings of the scriptures. Not some limp wrist spin.

Right there. Jesus said that since we are all sinners, we are not worthy to cast judgment onto people for their crimes. Therefore, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, you should probably represent the teachings of the figure at the center of your religion and not pass judgment on to others. I highly doubt you are perfect (I'm guessing you've eaten shellfish in your day and probably have shaved your beard recently, at least); therefore, the fact that you think men should be sent to death for their crimes is despicable and very un-Christian of you.

[RAMORE]

Not to mention, Ramore, you apparently support the death penalty for child molesters... which is astounding to me, considering you support taking life when none was lost in the first place...

When did I say this:huh: Are you trying to slander me?

[RAMORE]

Murder was wrong throughout the Bible, OT or NT. However, death penalties were also enforced throughout the word because that is not murder. It is a justifiable penalty.

The death penalty enforces the value of human life, it doesn't devalue it. If you take a person's life, you will pay for it with your own bc that is the only thing you have thats valuable enough to make up for it. Years in prison? Not valuable enough for what you stole. You take a life, you surrender your own.

Again, word play to lessen the status of the baby to a fetus is a lame attempt at remitting guilt. No one says they are "carrying a fetus" when they find they are pregnant. They say "we are having a baby" because we all know thatis what it is. The fetus word use is some psycho babbling garbage to try to ease guilt over murdering your unborn child.

You should feel guilty.


Exactly.

[RAMORE]

Well... I should have been in prison a long time ago, considering I'm a homosexual Unitarian Universalist... damn multicultural BS...

OK Dramaqueen:whatever:

[RAMORE]

Right there. Jesus said that since we are all sinners, we are not worthy to cast judgment onto people for their crimes. Therefore, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, you should probably represent the teachings of the figure at the center of your religion and not pass judgment on to others. I highly doubt you are perfect (I'm guessing you've eaten shellfish in your day and probably have shaved your beard recently, at least); therefore, the fact that you think men should be sent to death for their crimes is despicable and very un-Christian of you.

How can you judge someone as Un-Christian? I thought you weren't into judging people:whatever:

[Nitehawk013]

Again, perhaps you should leave the scripture to those of us who study it daily and not some unbelivers with no clue.

Had the people brought the man and the woman to Jesus, instead of just trying to punish the woman (many historians believe this was bc the man was likely one of the priests and they didn't want that revealed) it is possible Jesus would not have refutted the punishment. Further, this same Jesus encouraged judgment as long as the person judging was willing to be judged by the same measure (Matt 7:1-3). Further, He speaks later that his disciples will indeed judge the earth. The apostles echo this. They are admonished to be fair judges, to judge what is comely and appropriate for man, etc.

Also, as to the beards and shellfish...again since you seem to think you know your Bible you should recognize that the beard shaving was primarily a law for the Levites and sons of Aaron. Special rules for them since they were in special position. The shellfish was in a number of dietary laws not only meant to show a seperation form the rest of the world but also for health reasons. Shellfish are bottom feeders. They eat mostly waste and stuff we should not be ingesting. Pork also falls in dietary law, as if it is not prepared just right you are very likely to get really sick.

Later in Acts, God repealed the dietary laws in a vision to Peter explaining that those laws were meant to show the distinction between clean and unclean and the repeal of the law was to show Peter that now Gentiles were to be allowed to partake of salvation as they were no longer unclean.

Nowhere however, did God dismiss the death penalty.

[sasquatchs]

So Jesus supports stoning for adultery and the woman got off on a technicality. How comforting

[Franklin Richards]

And he supports killing all Jews. Well... when he returns anyway. Till then he wants them in one place so they don't get into any trouble.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[JLBats]

So Jesus supports stoning for adultery and the woman got off on a technicality. How comforting

Jesus is a total dick according to Nitehawk:huh::down
Like, now I feel entirely less inclined to follow His teachings.
Well done, shepherd!

[The Senator]

Again, perhaps you should leave the scripture to those of us who study it daily and not some unbelivers with no clue.

Had the people brought the man and the woman to Jesus, instead of just trying to punish the woman (many historians believe this was bc the man was likely one of the priests and they didn't want that revealed) it is possible Jesus would not have refutted the punishment. Further, this same Jesus encouraged judgment as long as the person judging was willing to be judged by the same measure (Matt 7:1-3). Further, He speaks later that his disciples will indeed judge the earth. The apostles echo this. They are admonished to be fair judges, to judge what is comely and appropriate for man, etc.

Then that basically means that if the death penalty is legalized, then those who put to death men on earth should be put to death themselves for partaking in that act. Sounds rational to me...

[Nitehawk013]

What did you read that says he will be killing all jews when he returns?

The whole scene of the second coming is he returns to defend Israel against the armies of the world. He saves the jews from destruction.

[The Senator]

What did you read that says he will be killing all jews when he returns?

The whole scene of the second coming is he returns to defend Israel against the armies of the world. He saves the jews from destruction.

...and then sends them to hell for not accepting Christ as a savior.

Of course, I can't remember if this is before or after the scorpion-men come from within the earth to steal our souls...

[Nitehawk013]

I'd say that depends on your view of dogma.

Personally, I am of the theological opinion that the jews are not under the same soteriological law we are. Thus judgment will be very different in their case. First, when they see Christ stand on the Mt of Olives they will recognize him as Messiah. Thus they will have faith in him and that is all that is required of the Jews. Second, those who have already passed will be judged justly according to their faith. Whether they end up in hell or not is God's call, not mine or any other mans.

[The Senator]

Well, considering most of what you said will never happen anyway, I strongly doubt the Jews have much to worry about.

[Franklin Richards]

Why won't "God" heal amputees?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Nitehawk013]

Kinda out of left field isn't it? Why should He?

[The Senator]

Kinda out of left field isn't it? Why should He?

Because he's a just and loving God? :huh:

[Franklin Richards]

He heals cripples and dead people. What did amputees do to piss him off? Fight in Iraq?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[The Senator]

He heals cripples and dead people. What did amputees do to piss him off? Fight in Iraq?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

Maybe some of them shaved their legs. :o

[RAMORE]

Once again Jman you have succeeded in turning a decent discussion into a mass of bile:csad:

[Nitehawk013]

I'm not seeing what is unjust or unloving about people being amputees.

[Nitehawk013]

Doh! Double post.

[Franklin Richards]

You believe in the Bible. You believe that Jesus healed people. You believe that Christians can heal people. Christians heal cripples. Christians heal mentally ill people. Christians heals homosexuals.

Why would God heal one group of people but not others who are just as faithful? Why then won't they heal a demographic that would prove God's existence?


That is unjust.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

What he said.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[RAMORE]

Back on topic...Jman you mentioned your lame argument of phetus until it can survive outside the womb. So since there are babies being born at two months in and living would you be in favor of backing the cut off date up to two months after conception?

[Franklin Richards]

It is on topic. If someone is going to push their religion in my face as a reason against abortion then I have the obligation to question said religion's doctrine.

So I ask again...

Why won't God heal amputees?



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

Back on topic...Jman you mentioned your lame argument of phetus until it can survive outside the womb. So since there are babies being born at two months in and living would you be in favor of backing the cut off date up to two months after conception?

Can you provide a source for this information? Two months seems incredibly soon for a child to be born and survive on its own without the help of machinery.

[The Senator]

Once again Jman you have succeeded in turning a decent discussion into a mass of bile:csad:

I like to hold Christians accountable for their beliefs, and since none of you seem to be practicing the ideals represented by the figure central to your religion in terms of the death penalty, I apologize for nothing.

[RAMORE]

He did in the garden after Peter cut off one of the guards ears Jesus picked it up and put it back on for him, Now are you satisfied?

Besides I don't think we were pushing our religion on anyone nor were we using to justify our abortion stance. Jman brought up why call yourself Prolife if your for the death penalty. Go back and read the thread before your embarass yourself.

[amazingfantasy15]

I'm curious to all the Pro-Life people in this thread, what do you feel about masterbation, I'm assuming you're against it because it can be viewed a abortion since you're not giving those sperm the chance at life. How about woman not having sex while ovulating again, this can be seen as abortion since that egg will never have the chance to become a baby and born.

Also, since most of people beliefs on the issue of abortion come from the bible, I think it would be safe to assume you don't believe in sex until marriage, so I hope all of you are getting married to girls around what 10-12 when they first start having their period so you aren't wasting those potential babies.

[RAMORE]

Can you provide a source for this information? Two months seems incredibly soon for a child to be born and survive on its own without the help of machinery.

Oh I see what you mean without medical help. Well then I guess it wouldn't apply however why shouldn't they use all the technology available to save a life and how does it's unvalidate it's life to you?

[Nitehawk013]

I'm curious to all the Pro-Life people in this thread, what do you feel about masterbation, I'm assuming you're against it because it can be viewed a abortion since you're not giving those sperm the chance at life. How about woman not having sex while ovulating again, this can be seen as abortion since that egg will never have the chance to become a baby and born.

Also, since most of people beliefs on the issue of abortion come from the bible, I think it would be safe to assume you don't believe in sex until marriage, so I hope all of you are getting married to girls around what 10-12 when they first start having their period so you aren't wasting those potential babies.

Now that is a stretch if I have ever heard one.

[The Senator]

He did in the garden after Peter cut off one of the guards ears Jesus picked it up and put it back on for him, Now are you satisfied?

Besides I don't think we were pushing our religion on anyone nor were we using to justify our abortion stance. Jman brought up why call yourself Prolife if your for the death penalty. Go back and read the thread before your embarass yourself.

I didn't claim anyone was pushing their faith on us, nor do I support that statement. But my original question was valid: How can a Christian support the death penalty, when Jesus himself said we are not to judge others for their sins unless we are willing to be judged by the same measures?

It perplexes me how a Christian, who is supposed to be morally against murder, can support the death penalty. And none of you gave me a valid reason for your support for the practice, other than you pick and choose which aspects of your faith you wish to abide by.

That's all I needed to get out of this social experiment.

[RAMORE]

I'm curious to all the Pro-Life people in this thread, what do you feel about masterbation, I'm assuming you're against it because it can be viewed a abortion since you're not giving those sperm the chance at life. How about woman not having sex while ovulating again, this can be seen as abortion since that egg will never have the chance to become a baby and born.

Also, since most of people beliefs on the issue of abortion come from the bible, I think it would be safe to assume you don't believe in sex until marriage, so I hope all of you are getting married to girls around what 10-12 when they first start having their period so you aren't wasting those potential babies.

I thought I had heard it all for ridiculousness but I guess not. Those eggs and sperm by themselves are not a baby so your statement doesn't really stand up.

[RAMORE]

I'm curious to all the Pro-Life people in this thread, what do you feel about masterbation, I'm assuming you're against it because it can be viewed a abortion since you're not giving those sperm the chance at life. How about woman not having sex while ovulating again, this can be seen as abortion since that egg will never have the chance to become a baby and born.

Also, since most of people beliefs on the issue of abortion come from the bible, I think it would be safe to assume you don't believe in sex until marriage, so I hope all of you are getting married to girls around what 10-12 when they first start having their period so you aren't wasting those potential babies.

Double post

[Nitehawk013]

You believe in the Bible. You believe that Jesus healed people. You believe that Christians can heal people. Christians heal cripples. Christians heal mentally ill people. Christians heals homosexuals.

Why would God heal one group of people but not others who are just as faithful? Why then won't they heal a demographic that would prove God's existence?


That is unjust.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Actually, Christians don't heal anyone. God heals people when God wants to heal people.

Why do some get healed and not others? Good question. Likely ebecause A) God is sovereign and does what he wants when he wants and B) he knows what is best for us and it might be best fo rus not to get what we want sometimes.

Further, some people bring destruction their own bodies. Therefore God healing them might be a violation of them reaping what they have sown. The law of reaping and sowing is from the creation and predates almost every other biblical law. God tends to not violate or overrule some laws.

Maybe I'll ask Him when I get to heaven.

[Nitehawk013]

I didn't claim anyone was pushing their faith on us, nor do I support that statement. But my original question was valid: How can a Christian support the death penalty, when Jesus himself said we are not to judge others for their sins unless we are willing to be judged by the same measures?

It perplexes me how a Christian, who is supposed to be morally against murder, can support the death penalty. And none of you gave me a valid reason for your support for the practice, other than you pick and choose which aspects of your faith you wish to abide by.

That's all I needed to get out of this social experiment.

Death penalty is justice, not murder. You got your answer clear as day, but you don't like it so you continue to argue. Your problem, not mine.

[RAMORE]

I didn't claim anyone was pushing their faith on us, nor do I support that statement. But my original question was valid: How can a Christian support the death penalty, when Jesus himself said we are not to judge others for their sins unless we are willing to be judged by the same measures?

It perplexes me how a Christian, who is supposed to be morally against murder, can support the death penalty. And none of you gave me a valid reason for your support for the practice, other than you pick and choose which aspects of your faith you wish to abide by.

That's all I needed to get out of this social experiment.

I didn't say you said that franklin did.

You never asked either of us if we ageed with the death penalty. I submit myself to the laws of the government I elect and live under therefore how am in not willing to be judged by the same measures?

Start a new thread about this then we need to be talking about the 4,000murdered babies a day.

[Franklin Richards]

He did in the garden after Peter cut off one of the guards ears Jesus picked it up and put it back on for him, Now are you satisfied?

Besides I don't think we were pushing our religion on anyone nor were we using to justify our abortion stance. Jman brought up why call yourself Prolife if your for the death penalty. Go back and read the thread before your embarass yourself.

Jesus did it. So why aren't Christians healing amputees in Iraq?

And I'm not embarrassing myself. Every Christian uses their faith as some sort of "moral compass". Especially when referring to abortion.

Your faith in some archaic war god who says follow my commandments or I'll ****ing spank you is what's morally bankrupt and embarrassing.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[amazingfantasy15]

I thought I had heard it all for ridiculousness but I guess not. Those eggs and sperm by themselves are not a baby so your statement doesn't really stand up.

Fetuses aren't babies yet either, they're potential babies just a little further along the line.

[RAMORE]

Jesus is a total dick according to Nitehawk:huh::down
Like, now I feel entirely less inclined to follow His teachings.
Well done, shepherd!

I just saw this and it's...really disturbing. I'm upset and mad but I feel I need to pray for you:

Dear Lord in heaven please be with user called JLBats and put loving real christians around him to show him the way and love him and teach him about you. God please just draw him closer to you so he can have a relationship to you and be one of your children. Thank you God for the privelage of my open communication that I can have to you that I don't have to go through a priest but we can talk anytime anywhere even on the hype. In Jesus name I pray Amen!

[The Senator]

Oh I see what you mean without medical help. Well then I guess it wouldn't apply however why shouldn't they use all the technology available to save a life and how does it's unvalidate it's life to you?

Because a fetus cannot be considered a fully-functional human being unless it can provide for itself outside of the mother's womb. Otherwise, the fetus essentially has a parasitic relationship with the mother, and relies on the mother in order to sustain its own life. Therefore, the fetus is a functioning part of the mother's body, and the mother has jurisdiction over any decisions which need to be made during the pregnancy.

Once the fetus develops into a cognitive, fully-functioning human being and no longer needs the mother to survive, then the mother loses her sovereignty over the child's rights. I would say the four month point is where the abortion cut off should be, based on the various medical journals I have read on this subject over the years.

[RAMORE]

Fetuses aren't babies yet either, they're potential babies just a little further along the line.

First of all it's a baby not a fetus but call it what you want if you let a fetus follow it's natural course it's born a short time later a baby. Sperm doesn't turn into something without help neither does the egg.

[RAMORE]

Jesus did it. So why aren't Christians healing amputees in Iraq?

And I'm not embarrassing myself. Every Christian uses their faith as some sort of "moral compass". Especially when referring to abortion.

Your faith in some archaic war god who says follow my commandments or I'll ****ing spank you is what's morally bankrupt and embarrassing.


:doom: :doom: :doom:


If Jesus was in Iraq he would.

[amazingfantasy15]

First of all it's a baby not a fetus but call it what you want if you let a fetus follow it's natural course it's born a short time later a baby. Sperm doesn't turn into something without help neither does the egg.

A fetus doesn't turn into anything without help, ie it's mother.

[RAMORE]

Because a fetus cannot be considered a fully-functional human being unless it can provide for itself outside of the mother's womb. Otherwise, the fetus essentially has a parasitic relationship with the mother, and relies on the mother in order to sustain its own life. Therefore, the fetus is a functioning part of the mother's body, and the mother has jurisdiction over any decisions which need to be made during the pregnancy.

Once the fetus develops into a cognitive, fully-functioning human being and no longer needs the mother to survive, then the mother loses her sovereignty over the child's rights. I would say the four month point is where the abortion cut off should be, based on the various medical journals I have read on this subject over the years.

That's an interesting analogy for the relationship I haven't heard before. However, I don't think it holds up all babies and children can't survive on their own they have to be fed, clothed, cared for etc.

[Nivek]

Death penalty is justice, not murder.

Actually, the purpose of the Death Penalty is Euthanasia. Justice is something these killers victims will never see. The only thing they get out of the execution is nowing that P.O.S. will never hurt another person.

[Franklin Richards]

I don't know if any of you have ever been to jail, but it's much worse than ending your suffering.


Lock 'em in a cage for the rest of their days. Send 'em to Jail Island. Whatever.


Killing is too merciful.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[RAMORE]

Week 5 a baby's heart starts beating. What other non living thing has a heart that pumps blood for it?

[Franklin Richards]

It's not about the heart. It's about the brain.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[cerealkiller182]

That's an interesting analogy for the relationship I haven't heard before. However, I don't think it holds up all babies and children can't survive on their own they have to be fed, clothed, cared for etc.

Theres a difference between viabilty (the ability of an individual to survive) and dependency (the reliance on society to survive). Its not uncommon for people to be dependent on something or other from the day they are born to the day they die, but regardless they still breathe, digest, and all the other bodily functions. I believe this is the same arugment that intiailly won Roe vs Wade.

[Nitehawk013]

I don't know if any of you have ever been to jail, but it's much worse than ending your suffering.


Lock 'em in a cage for the rest of their days. Send 'em to Jail Island. Whatever.


Killing is too merciful.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Yes prison must be hell. With three meals a day, snacks when they want, all the cigs they can smoke, free movies and cable TV, college education at the tax payers expense, hobby time, arts & crafts...you're right. Prison is hell.

People don't go to Alcatraz anymore. They go to prisons where if they get treated "unfairly" or inhumanly they can sue.

[The Senator]

Yes prison must be hell. With three meals a day, snacks when they want, all the cigs they can smoke, free movies and cable TV, college education at the tax payers expense, hobby time, arts & crafts...you're right. Prison is hell.

People don't go to Alcatraz anymore. They go to prisons where if they get treated "unfairly" or inhumanly they can sue.

Wow, you enjoy pulling hyperbolic nonsense out of your ass, don't you?

[amazingfantasy15]

Yes prison must be hell. With three meals a day, snacks when they want, all the cigs they can smoke, free movies and cable TV, college education at the tax payers expense, hobby time, arts & crafts...you're right. Prison is hell.

People don't go to Alcatraz anymore. They go to prisons where if they get treated "unfairly" or inhumanly they can sue.

You forgot about the buttsex.

[The Senator]

You forgot about the buttsex.

Snacks, cigarettes, cable, a free college education... and buttsex?! :wow:

Makes me want to do something illegal.

[Franklin Richards]

Yes prison must be hell. With three meals a day, snacks when they want, all the cigs they can smoke, free movies and cable TV, college education at the tax payers expense, hobby time, arts & crafts...you're right. Prison is hell.

People don't go to Alcatraz anymore. They go to prisons where if they get treated "unfairly" or inhumanly they can sue.

You don't have any idea of what you are talking about. They do get three crappy meals a day. If they want snacks they have to earn money at a 10 dollar a day job. Tobacco was outlawed long ago. There are no free movies. If you are lucky you can take advantage of the 2 hours a day that the TV is turned on in the common room. Which means you watch what the guards want which is usually Maury Povich. You can take education classes by correspondence. Again eating into your 10 dollar a day job. Hobby time consists of playing checkers and drawing on some paper.

You can't leave. You can't **** unless you enjoy rape. You can't see your momma when she's dieing.

Oh and lets not forget getting forced to toss someones salad.


You have no idea what you're talking about.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Nitehawk013]

Yes your right. It's terrible there.

Curse you network television news for thsoe expose's you did showing how good they actually had it in many of these prisons where you showed them in very elaborate and clean workout rooms, relaxing in very nice TV rooms and spoke to some who were indeed getting their college degrees for nothing. You lied to me. It was all a sham. They actually are all horrid places liek that HBO show.

[Franklin Richards]

So you believe the Liberal Media now? Which one is it?
You only believe them when they back up your arguments?


:doom: :doom: :doom: