Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[palerider]

Agreed. I can imagine a lot of this debate is born off religious conviction to which I have none so for me it comes down to the choice of that person carrying the baby. I'm sure a pregnant woman will not take a decision to abort a baby lightly? Not exactly a light moment in life determining whether you your child or not! More often than not the woman does not want the kid to start with and I shudder to think of the state of mind of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rapist - jeeeeez that must be frightening. Thus I go with the right of the woman to abort every time.

Care to bring some "religious" argument forward? That is a tidy dodge that a lot on the pro choice side use. You claim that the pro life argument is religious in nature but oddly enough, find it very difficult, if not impossible to bring religious arguments from pro lifers up as evidence.

Considering that 45 million have been killed since roe, to assume that women don't take abortion lightly would be a mistake. Most abortions are nothing more than a means of birth control.

Nah... don't like that argument as a few cells doing whats' programmed is just like a computer programme running routines. Microsoft Windows is not alive although it does do some pretty weird things likewise a ball of cells dividing and multipying does'nt do it for me.

You are nothing more than a few more cells doing what they are programmed to do. You do not make a conscious effort to live. You don't make a conscious effort to exchange oxygen for CO2 in your lungs, you don't make a conscious effort to absorb nutrients in your gut, you make no conscious effort to live at all.

That you can't wrap your mind around the idea that an immature human being is just as human as you doesn't change the fact in the slightest that they are.

Religion has been the cause of more grief and suffering down the ages than plague rats thus what rights have religious leaders or religious communities to start dictating the running of other peoples life. I can't imagine wanting to go through with a birth of an unwanted kid just to please some self-righteous group of religious zealots. Which religion is it that bans its members from blood transfusions?....can't remember anyway this bunch of doolally ejits would rather see the death of one of its flock than save their life - do you agree with that on the grounds of gods will?

Once again, if you believe my argument is religious in nature, bring it here as evidence. Otherwise defend your position rather than casting false aspersions on mine.

As to religion causing suffering, consider that 45 million human beings have been denied their most basic human right in this country alone since 1972. When you can point to any religion being responsible for a human rights disaster of that magnitude in that amount of time in this country, then you will be justified in pointing at religion.

 

[The Scotsman]

Care to bring some "religious" argument forward?

Just making the point here I said that I can IMAGINE a lot of the debate is born from religious conviction – true/false? What’s the basis of your argument? I’ve laid my cards on the table!

As I said, how can I bring a religious slant to the argument when I know balls all about religion? I can’t even give you the ten Commandments!! You can call it a dodge or cop-out if you like but I can’t trade religious quotes at you nor can I argue from a religious perspective because I haven’t got one. I could make up some quotes up though “…..and God said let there be abortion!! And there was coz he wasn’t on earth and the pregnant lady that didn’t want her baby was!!!....” makes a mockery of a serious subject though doesn’t it!

Consider this, however, because I don’t’ subscribe to any organised religion does that negate my opinion “No religion no comment!” is that what you mean? Anyway moving on.....

....Most abortions are nothing more than a means of birth control.

Good point well presented. I don't know the figures if you say 45 million then that's right. Again my feeling is that its not my choice or position to pass judgement on a woman that gets herself into that position! Women get pregnant all the time and in most cases those kids are wanted. Having a mother forced to go through with a pregnancy just for the sake of someone elses ideals, however, is not something I consider right and proper. Generally though I agree with your thrust it is not something that should be taken lightly.

That you can't wrap your mind around the idea that an immature human being is just as human as you doesn't change the fact in the slightest that they are.

I think this point has been dealt with in the courts to which I bow to their judgment on. I think they have definitions as to what does and does not constitute a "viable" human.

As to religion causing suffering, consider that 45 million human beings have been denied their most basic human right in this country alone since 1972. When you can point to any religion being responsible for a human rights disaster of that magnitude in that amount of time in this country, then you will be justified in pointing at religion.

I assume that's rhetorical?

 

[palerider]

Just making the point here I said that I can IMAGINE a lot of the debate is born from religious conviction – true/false? What’s the basis of your argument? I’ve laid my cards on the table!

Mine is based sqarely in sceince and the law and any review of my previous posts will make it obvious.

makes a mockery of a serious subject though doesn’t it!

Claiming that the opposition is making a religious argument when it is not makes even more of a mockery of the subject. If you are unable to argue your opponent's position based on what it actually is without suggesting that it is religious in nature when clearly it isn't, why even bother?

Good point well presented. I don't know the figures if you say 45 million then that's right. Again my feeling is that its not my choice or position to pass judgement on a woman that gets herself into that position!

Would you feel that it was your position to pass judgement on a woman who killed her 3 year old, her two year old and her newborn infant because she decided that raising kids just wasn't for her?

I think this point has been dealt with in the courts to which I bow to their judgment on. I think they have definitions as to what does and does not constitute a "viable" human.

The courts are not qualified to determine what is and isn't a living human being, or what is and isn't a living member of any species. When a new species is discovered in the rain forest, do you believe that they bring it to the courts to determine what it is? Determining what is and isn't alive, and what it is is a matter of science, not law. And viability is not what makes you a human being. If that were true, anyone needing life support to sustain their lives could simply be killed because they would be no longer human beings.

 

[The Scotsman]

Claiming that the opposition is making a religious argument when it is not makes even more of a mockery of the subject. If you are unable to argue your opponent's position based on what it actually is without suggesting that it is religious in nature when clearly it isn't, why even bother?

Dude you seem to be getting really peeved about something that wasn't addressed to you in the first place!! Read the original post from Nammy....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nammy
If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?

I was agreeing with Nammy! You can play lawyer and scientist with the others personally I'm a passion and prejudice kinnda guy which is the spirit on Nammy's post IMHO and still agree with the womans right to choose.

Oh yeah....

The courts are not qualified to determine what is and isn't a living human being,....

I thought they did? Wasn't there some sort of legal definition so that all those stem cell research guys and geneticists were reined in? Anyway if not then my mistake NBD I'll leave you to the lawyerly stuff

Now feel free to refer to any legal dictionary for the definition of "person". You will find that in order to be considered a person in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being.

so I guess they did please advise.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

The "GOV" intrudes far too much into peoples lives as it is, lighten up....
If any given Citizen and Doctor conspire together to do something that YOU consider immoral, so be it and far be it from me to intervene in anyones private life!

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

If I where to sunbathe on my front lawn naked, what harm would be done, oh the neighborhood brats may be exposed to the sight of an natural human body OH MY - can't have that!

I PROTEST! Live and let live and stay OUT of peoples private lives!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

Bravo, Nospam4me.
Just plain bravo!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, I have to admit it, Pale has convinced me. Just like the good Rev. Phelps has convinced a lot of people with his own personal brand of extremism, so too has Pale convinced me. I never was a big-time supporter of abortion, but now I am.

Without strenuous opposition I think that our lives will come to be run by the kind of people that I think Pale speaks for: misogynist, religious, gay-baiting, folks who would make our country into a theocratic police-state if they had the opportunity. Anyone who feels I am overstating the case should read Pale's arguments for police-state powers on the Authoritarian=Liberals thread.

All life comes from a single source, to pick one kind of life and make it sacred at the expense of all other lives is hardly rational. The whole debate is predicated on the very judgment that Christians are forbidden to make. Babies are innocent and therefore deserve special consideration, people dying in our insane wars, starving, or shivering under bridges are not innocent so they don't deserve special consideration. It looks like bald-faced hypocrisy to me.

 

[arbitor]

oh yes. just becuase we didnt address EVERY SINGLE other issue (in a debate comepletely unrealated i might add) that means we dont care and are hypocrites. wait a sec. my bs meater is is going off the charts. mabey you should read what the debates TITLE is. is it "poverty? should government do more?" or " should we still be in iraq?" nope, last i checked it was "ABORTION: RIGHT OR WRONG"

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

oh yes. just becuase we didnt address EVERY SINGLE other issue (in a debate comepletely unrealated i might add) that means we dont care and are hypocrites. wait a sec. my bs meater is is going off the charts. mabey you should read what the debates TITLE is. is it "poverty? should government do more?" or " should we still be in iraq?" nope, last i checked it was "ABORTION: RIGHT OR WRONG"

What are you chuntering on about? This is a thread about abortion not about you bs'ing you meat.

The abortion issue is about power, who has the power to control your body, who has the power of life and death. It seems that you have an amazing paucity of things to contribute, a dearth one might say.

If you will quote the post to which you are responding then it might help us understand what you are talking about.

 

[The Scotsman]

The abortion issue is about power, who has the power to control your body, who has the power of life and death.

BINGO

 

[palerider]

BINGO

Well, it is about the power to deny a whole class of human beings the most basic human right. Some 45 million since 1972 in this country alone. It is about giving one human being the power to unilatarally decide to kill another human being for any or no reason with no legal consequence.

 

[The Scotsman]

Hi mate - You seem fixated upon these 45 million wee bundles of cells which in some cases probably have less cells than something green that is ejected from my nose when I have a heavy cold Look I guess the basic question is what gives one the right to tell someone else what to do with their body?

Just an aside though and not much at all to do with the debate, you mentioned in earlier posts the law and gave quotes and your oppinions from, inter alia, Roe. In the Roe judgement I found it really fascinating that their Honours in considering their various oppinions looked at so many diverse sources for guidance such as Ancient Greek philosophers, Roman philosophers and Roman Law even Victorian tradition as well as the religious implications from cannon law, English Law, Roman Catholicism and and and .... the point being that I found it enlightening that they viewed the topic without reference to "modern" fads and social/political/religious fashions of the day. Fashions change over time for example in Roman Times the patriarch had absolute authority he could kill a child or keep a child and brook no argument.

got to go now wife wants to go shopping............

 

[Pandora]

Hi mate - You seem fixated upon these 45 million wee bundles of cells which in some cases probably have less cells than something green that is ejected from my nose when I have a heavy cold Look I guess the basic question is what gives one the right to tell someone else what to do with their body? :

You could leave the snot in your nose for a month and it would never develope a heart beat. The human child does in I believe 22 days. The snot in your nose will also always have your own DNA not someone elses DNA.

To compare a human being, a child to the snot in your nose is.......

Well I guess it just takes all kinds.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, it is about the power to deny a whole class of human beings the most basic human right. Some 45 million since 1972 in this country alone. It is about giving one human being the power to unilatarally decide to kill another human being for any or no reason with no legal consequence.

To kill or not, and therein lies the issue of power. Women want that power and you want to take it from them. This is a power struggle in which both sides feel that they have the right to control others.

 

[The Scotsman]

To compare a human being, a child to the snot in your nose is.......

Well I guess it just takes all kinds.

chill a wee bit dude

 

[palerider]

Hi mate - You seem fixated upon these 45 million wee bundles of cells which in some cases probably have less cells than something green that is ejected from my nose when I have a heavy cold Look I guess the basic question is what gives one the right to tell someone else what to do with their body?

A human being is a human being. If you can demonstrate in any real way that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything besides a human being, then call them what you will, but calling a black person a coon or ni%%er does not make them into something other than a human being and calling an unborn child a "wee bundle of cells" doesn't change what they are either.

The real question is what gives one human being the right to kill another human being for any or no reason without legal consequence?

Just an aside though and not much at all to do with the debate, you mentioned in earlier posts the law and gave quotes and your oppinions from, inter alia, Roe. In the Roe judgement I found it really fascinating that their Honours in considering their various oppinions looked at so many diverse sources for guidance such as Ancient Greek philosophers, Roman philosophers and Roman Law even Victorian tradition as well as the religious implications from cannon law, English Law, Roman Catholicism and and and .... the point being that I found it enlightening that they viewed the topic without reference to "modern" fads and social/political/religious fashions of the day. Fashions change over time for example in Roman Times the patriarch had absolute authority he could kill a child or keep a child and brook no argument.

Of course they looked in all manner of places for a justification to make abortion legal. They had to since there is no such provision in the US Consitution where they are sworn to look. They had an agenda that they intended to push before the first word of testimony was ever heard and they went to any source available at which they believed that they could get a plausible justification.