Abortion

[USMC the Almighty]

I believe I have made my position on abortion quite clear, and the responsibility of society if it is ever outlawed.

i.e. the question he asked was too hard so you're just going to retreat into your talking points.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

i.e. the question he asked was too hard so you're just going to retreat into your talking points.

No, the question was not too hard and I didn't retreat to talking points. This discussion is about abortion and I made my position on abortion quite clear. Or was it too hard to understand?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

No, the question was not too hard and I didn't retreat to talking points. This discussion is about abortion and I made my position on abortion quite clear. Or was it too hard to understand?

Then answer his question.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Then answer his question.

Let me quote myself from post #33.

I did not claim to speak for any group, only myself. On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period. That is not a fabricated right. The fabricated right is those who claim that they have the right to tell a woman that they must carry the pregnancy to term. You nor I do not know all of the circumstances/decision making process as to why any woman would have an abortion.

The bolded part is my answer. It doesn't get much clearer than that

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The question was this:

Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

and your response is this?

On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period.

Talk about a cop out.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

The question was this:



and your response is this?



Talk about a cop out.

That is correct, that was my response and it's pretty damn clear on my position on abortion:

I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period.


That answers the question plain and simple. What more do you want? A paragraph, two pages, etc. What is it that I didn't make clear in that statement?

 

[top gun]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

No you do not... not at all.

You have no moral authority to dictate what someone does to their own body. And as it has stood for decades no legal authority either. And that includes anything inside said body.

Things are not always perfect. There are literally hundreds of examples. Say two conjoined twins must be separated so that one can live... but one will also die. Termination of any life is always a serious decision. But again even in the twin scenario I want the family & their doctor to decided... not me... not you... not the government.

The bottom line is different people have differing opinions on when viable life starts in the begining... and then you could go all the way to... could said life live outside the womb for and actual viable life scenario.

No one is forcing you or anyone else to have an abortion. I would in most cases recommend against it myself. But my opinion is light years away from those who think they are the ones to say when... or to say never.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That answers the question plain and simple. What more do you want? A paragraph, two pages, etc. What is it that I didn't make clear in that statement?

That's not answering the question. You're just providing a blanket statement on abortion.

Palerider asks:

Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

I don't see how "a woman get do whatever she wants with her own body" is an answer to that question.

He doesn't say anything about women or their bodies in fact. He is asking what classes of people do you believe ought to be subject to indiscriminate murder for the convenience of women? Saying she can do whatever she wants with her body is not a sufficient answer.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

That's not answering the question. You're just providing a blanket statement on abortion.

Palerider asks:

I don't see how "a woman get do whatever she wants with her own body" is an answer to that question.

He doesn't say anything about women or their bodies in fact. He is asking what classes of people do you believe ought to be subject to indiscriminate murder for the convenience of women? Saying she can do whatever she wants with her body is not a sufficient answer.

I'm not going to play the game that he is trying to bait me into. If my position on abortion is not to his or your satisfaction that is not my problem. I have made it quite clear what it is.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm not going to play the game that he is trying to bait me into. If my position on abortion is not to his or your satisfaction that is not my problem. I have made it quite clear what it is.

The entire purpose of coming to a place like this is to discuss your positions on various issues and have them challenged by people from the other side of aisle. But when you refuse to allow other posters to challenge your position by retreating into your "don't tell a woman what to do with 'her' body" talking point, then you really defeat the purpose of discussing the issues here.

He asked a question that exposes the inherent problem with your philosophy and you refuse to answer it because you do not want your predetermined beliefs to be challenged.

 

[Coyote]

Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

We place a value on human life and express it via the law. We also acknowledge that there are actions that can require the payment of a life and express that via the law as well.

You didn't forget. You just exposed a conflict within your philosophy that you probably didn't even know was there until you saw it in black and white. I commend you for recognizing it and not deleting it.

In matters of killing, the law is all we have. As things stand today, abortion is as unconstitutional as slavery was. Blacks were enslaved because a court said that they were not human beings and unborns may be killed for the very same reason.

Refer to the definition of faith. You reqire something beyond logic and whatever you care to call it, it is faith.

...you may be right...

If the one has the right not to be killed for medical research, why would that one not have the right not to be killed for reasons that amount to no more than convenience? Do you have some special circumstance that would make you more worthy of being protected by the law than me?

That is not the same thing. You are not growing inside of me.

And once again, the law says that a person is simply a human being without qualification.

Yes...but the law is not and has not always been logical. I am unable to come to terms with the concept that a blastocyst is a person in any fashion.

If your long term health is threatened then yes, you have the right to defend yourself. That is what the law says. A short term threat is not, however a valid reason to kill.

What's a short term threat? Bearing in mind that the mortality rate for childbirth is still higher than that for abortion except in the later stages of gestation.

I am not aware of women who use fertility drugs aborting one or more of the children. I am not sure that an abortion can be performed that will targed individuals iin a multiple pregnancy. Unless you are talking about surgury.

It is surgery to remove selected fetus' - but abortion is surgery after a certain point.


You have competing rights.

A woman's right to determine what happens to her own body. No one else has the right to decide that for her because no one but her has to live with the choice. I don't believe in unlimited right of abortion but neither will I let another person make choices on my body - it is the most intimate, important thing I own. It is the only thing I own. It's the one thing that is wholey mine. That doesn't mean I would choose abortion. In the end - for me personally - it comes down to this. My body belongs to me.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

The entire purpose of coming to a place like this is to discuss your positions on various issues and have them challenged by people from the other side of aisle. But when you refuse to allow other posters to challenge your position by retreating into your "don't tell a woman what to do with 'her' body" talking point, then you really defeat the purpose of discussing the issues here.

He asked a question that exposes the inherent problem with your philosophy and you refuse to answer it because you do not want your predetermined beliefs to be challenged.

The only inherent "problem" with my philosophy is that you both disagree with it. That is not my problem, it is yours. Neither of you have made any arguments to convince me to change my position and I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual. I fail to see how that is refusing to allow you to challenge my position.

 

[palerider]

I believe I have made my position on abortion quite clear, and the responsibility of society if it is ever outlawed.

Right. You made it perfectly clear. You implied that it was better to kill them because they would be a burden on society. I asked you if you thought that all who were burdens on society should be killed or just these potential burdens and you failed to answer the question.

You made yourself perfectly clear.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Right. You made it perfectly clear. You implied that it was better to kill them because they would be a burden on society. I asked you if you thought that all who were burdens on society should be killed or just these potential burdens and you failed to answer the question.

You made yourself perfectly clear.

I guess it wasn't clear. You assume that I believe abortion is ok because those born would be a burden on society. I said no such thing and you know it. I'm not going to play your little game that you are trying to bait me into.

 

[palerider]

You have no moral authority to dictate what someone does to their own body. And as it has stood for decades no legal authority either. And that includes anything inside said body.

We are not talking about the woman's body. She is not the one being killed. And we are not talking about a "thing" inside of the woman's body, we are talking about a human being. If you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic in real terms and must hide behind vague phrases like "her body" and "anything" you really aren't prepared for this discussion.

Things are not always perfect. There are literally hundreds of examples. Say two conjoined twins must be separated so that one can live... but one will also die. Termination of any life is always a serious decision. But again even in the twin scenario I want the family & their doctor to decided... not me... not you... not the government.

So you support killing human beings for no better reason than convenience without consequence because "things" aren't always perfect? Were you born into a perfect family, with perfect finances, with a perfect place for you?

In the case of conjoined twins, if an organ is shared and not strong enough to support both, then an effort is made to save one at the expense of the other. If, by this example, you are saying that you only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger and by default the child's life as well and only one can be saved, then I am with you. The mother has the right to protect her life and shouldn't have to share her body if it is going to kill her exactly as the conjoined twin who has the organ that isn't strong enough to support both children has the right to not share if it is going to kill him.

The bottom line is different people have differing opinions on when viable life starts in the begining... and then you could go all the way to... could said life live outside the womb for and actual viable life scenario.

An opinion that is not supported by fact is worthless. When our lives begin is an inarguable today as a result of scientific advances as an argume that the world is flat.

And if the child is not viable, it is miscarried. If it is viable, it continues to live until it dies of natural causes or someone kills it. Again, hiding behind vague expressions like "viable" doesn't strengthen your position in this discussion. A human in early development requires a certain environment to live. Removing him or her from that environment will cause death, but has nothing to do with viability. You require a certain environment. If you were removed from that environment and put 1000 feet deep in the ocean or in the vaccum of space without protection, you would die. Does that mean that you weren't viable or that someone killed you by removing you from the environment you required to live?

No one is forcing you or anyone else to have an abortion. I would in most cases recommend against it myself. But my opinion is light years away from those who think they are the ones to say when... or to say never.

If I don't like abortions then I shouldn't have one. Just like a bumper sticker.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

Is that how you justify everything in your life? If you don't like arson, then don't set fires? If you don't like wife beating, then don't beat your wife? If you don't like child abuse, then don't abuse your children? You think that if we don't like certain things, we should just not do them and laws that protect us really aren't necessary?