Abortion

[samsara15]

Feel free to elaborate. Simply saying so doesn't make it so.

Appeals to emotion are not impressive evidence of the truth of your assertions, either, BTW. {/quote]

I don't appeal to emotion.



You believe that the soviet union, china, cambodia, or viet nam were communist? Think again. Communisim entails the joint ownership of the means of production and the end product by the people while socialism entails the ownership of the means of production by the government. Take a look at china, cambodia, the soviet union or vietnam and tell me which one you believe that the average citizen held equal ownership of the means of production and the final product.

So you would claim that communism might work, if properly applied? O Pale, you surprise me. Tell that to your other supporters in the Right, and see how fast they back away from you.

 

[palerider]

Wait a second... You said "Parents", plural, as in both the mother and father have an obligation to provide for the unborn during pregnancy? You've never before mentioned the fathers obligation to provide for the unborn during pregnancy, so please elaborate on his role and the legal consequences that would result from his failure.

Again, what does the present law state with regard to childrend who die of abuse or neglect from their parents? If your wife endangers your child and you know it and others know that you know it and you do nothing and the child dies, do you think you get off scott free because your wife was the one actually doing the deed? If you don't stop it, or report it if you are unable, then you become an accessory.

It is as possible to determine paternity of an unborn as it is with an infant so I am completely in favor of making a man responsible for his children whether he likes it or not. If he can be identified as the father and doesn't step up to the plate, he is a deadbeat dad and should be garnished till his child finishes college.

That is untrue but so is most of what you have claimed about me, my statements, and my position in this thread.

I abhor the practice of abortion and have stated that much repeatedly.

Of course you do, but when you began to try and argue in favor of it, even as a devil's advocate, you become an opponent. And I don't see where I have mischaracterized anything you have said or said anything about you personally in the course of this exercise.

You seem to be pushing everyone into adopting your "solution" but you're not willing to discuss, or even acknowledge, the foreseeable consequences of that decision.

What consequences possibly outweigh 40 million dead human beings denied their most basic human rights in the USA?

I'm not arguing against your position so please don't misconstrue my questions as combative. - Me

Of course the questions are combative but I don't see you personally as combative and I answered your questions. You may not like the answers but there they are. I am not going to say oh golly, we may have to take care of a child if its mother doesn't want it or a million children so lets let her kill it.

This is a human rights issue and if one rationalizes reasons to not protect human rights, then one joins the ranks of the despots, and the tools of despots, and the dupes of despots of both history and present.

Hopefully Dr. Who is willing to address my questions and offer some answers. How about it Dr. Who... Are willing to look at the results of Pale's solution or do you agree with him that we should just shoot first and ask questions later?

We already shot first when abortion was made legal. Now we are faced with the residual problems, ramifications, and questions that resulted from the original decision. Are you liking the result?

 

[palerider]

So you would claim that communism might work, if properly applied? O Pale, you surprise me. Tell that to your other supporters in the Right, and see how fast they back away from you.

Where did you get that? I simply pointed out that you clearly don't know the difference between socialism and communism and that the governments I mentioned were not communist as you suggested.

Go back and read carefully and read for comprehnsion this time, then feel free to point out where I claim to support either socialism or communism.

 

[GenSeneca]

What consequences possibly outweigh 40 million dead human beings denied their most basic human rights in the USA?

My biggest problem with your "answers" was that you answered my questions with questions... Like you did above.

Where do children currently go? What is the capacity of those facilities? How much is their current operational cost and how much can we expect their operational costs to increase? There are many more questions...

Of course the questions are combative

My questions are legitimate inquiries to the logistical realities that will result from your proposal and answering them with combative rhetorical questions did not help my understanding of your proposals effects.

When the Politicians come out with a plan, like healthcare, is it combative to ask questions? Of course not, yet they act the same way you have... "Oh, I suppose you want people dying in the streets and denied medical care!"

We already shot first when abortion was made legal.

Gee... Seems like SOMEONE should have asked about the possible repurcussions and logistical realities that would result from their decision... I wonder if someone did ask and the only answer they got was, "Oh, I suppose you just want to deny women their reproductive rights?!"

 

[rushhannity]

Human Life begins at conception period. Aborting a fetus is murder period. PERIOD...

 

[Pandora]

Human Life begins at conception period. Aborting a fetus is murder period. PERIOD...

You are back

So glad to see you my dear, I have missed you!



and I agree live begins at conception.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are back So glad to see you my dear, I have missed you! And I agree live begins at conception.

Does it give you even a moments pause when listening to these men deciding how ALL women should be forced to behave? I look at human history and I don't see any glimmer of intelligence in the behavior of the great mass of men who have taken us through endless wars. And now to have those same men deciding how we have to yield control of our bodies to their dictates even if we are raped seems to me to be giving away too large a portion of our autonomy.

 

[Pandora]

Does it give you even a moments pause when listening to these men deciding how ALL women should be forced to behave? I look at human history and I don't see any glimmer of intelligence in the behavior of the great mass of men who have taken us through endless wars. And now to have those same men deciding how we have to yield control of our bodies to their dictates even if we are raped seems to me to be giving away too large a portion of our autonomy.

Actually, no. But the reason being is I do not see it as a woman's issue. I see it as a human issue. These men are human beings as I am and as unborn babies are, as humans they have a right to advocate for other humans.

If I ignored the human aspect of it and went to the next level, it would be as the father of the unborn baby. Fathers of unborn babies have zero rights where their own children are concerned. I think a father of an unborn baby should have as much rights to decide his children's future as a mother.

I see it from both of those angles before I see it as a woman's issue.


I understand you do not see it the same way and that is ok. I respect that.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hopefully Dr. Who is willing to address my questions and offer some answers. How about it Dr. Who... Are willing to look at the results of Pale's solution or do you agree with him that we should just shoot first and ask questions later?

I hop you forgive me if I answer your question wrongly. This has been a very long and complicated thread. I am just not sure I know exactly what question you want answered and what you think Pale's solution is and what it means to shoot first in this instance.

I assume you want me to discuss ones right to life versus the responsibilithy of others not to neglect.

I will answer that both legally to the best of my non-legal mind and then from my own moral perspective.

Legally we cannot harm another or deny them their rights in most circumstances. Other people have a right to life so we must not take their life from them. If I see a stranger on the side of the road who is injured and starving I am legally free to pass by and let him die. I can neglect his needs as long as I don't actively attempt to deny him his rights. He is on his own to make his own way. Unless I have some contractual obligation to take care of him or unless in some way I have a responsibility or duty or obligation to take care of him. Neglect is ignoring ones responsibility to do what is required. So who is required to take care of the man? A police man or a fireman usually would be.

What about a child? A mother has a legal responsibility to take care of her children or she is guilty of neglect. If she addicts her unborn to cocaine she is equally guilty of neglect. She has a responsibility to actively take care of her unborn children and to provide for his or her needs. Unless she appeals to R V W and claims her right to privacy - then she can neglect it, even have it ripped apart. This is where the inconsistency in the law causes me to cry foul. If some mothers are going to have to take care of some children then all mothers must take care of all their children. Otherwise there is no equal protection under the law.

Morally, I would say that each of us individually are our brothers keepers and we each have the duty to take care of each other all the time. I should not pass by the starving man, I should not neglect my children born or unborn.

 

[GenSeneca]

I hop you forgive me if I answer your question wrongly.

Dr. Who,

I do appreciate you trying to answer my questions, and I take no issue with your response, but you didn't answer the questions I was asking about.

Pale wants to recognize the rights of the unborn and put them on equal footing with everyone else. This would necessarily ban the practice of abortion in all instances where the mothers' health was not being threatened by the unborn child. My question(s) to him was basically, what ramifications will this have and how can we prepare?

As with any policy, one can look at the impact a policy is likely to have prior to adopting it. This allows us to plan ahead and have solutions ready for the foreseeable consequences.

I don't think there is any doubt that enacting his policy will create certain obligations for the state and its taxpayers, this is what I was hoping we could discuss. Pale took my questions as a vein attempt to look for an excuse for why we shouldn't recognize an unborn child's rights but, as I stated, that was not at all my intention. I was merely curious as to whether or not he'd given any thought to the consequences of his policy and see if he had formulated some solutions.

Rather than use an analogy (Pale hates my analogies), I'll use a hypothetical example of enacting his policy and ask you some questions, to see what you think about the consequences of the policy and find out if you can think of any solutions.

Now that there are no more abortions (except medically necessary), there will be more children given up for adoption. While I hope that is not a debatable statement, I won't even guess as to the number because that just seemed to irritate Pale. But my first question was, "Where will they go?" and his answer was, "Where do they go now?"... Perhaps I should know the answer to his question but I don't... Where do they go now? Do we have state run orphanages? I think there are some private ones but I have no idea how many.

That led me to more questions: What is the maximum capacity for these institutions? How many do they hold now and how many can they handle? What is their current operating budget and how much will it rise if they reach maximum capacity?

Those are just a few of the questions I have but I feel they warrant serious consideration... And I state again that my purpose in asking is not to disparage the recognition of rights to the unborn but to encourage those who support the idea to contemplate the repercussions of such a policy, in order to develop solutions to foreseeable problems ahead of time.

I don't think Pale was prepared to deliberate on questions of "What then?" but I think it would greatly strengthen his position if he took them into account when arguing for the recognition of rights for the unborn.

Sorry to have gone so long Dr. Who... I do hope you understand the nature of my questions and are willing to discuss them with me... At the very least begin thinking about the "What then?" aspects of recognizing rights for the unborn, because the Pro-Life argument is advancing and it may become a reality sooner than we think.

 

[dahermit]

Forty million more lives saved...to be on welfare and unemployment. Would that make things better or worse for us in the current economy? Hmmm? I wonder.

 

[Pandora]

Forty million more lives saved...to be on welfare and unemployment. Would that make things better or worse for us in the current economy? Hmmm? I wonder.

If human life does not matter because they might get welfare or unemployment then why dont we just off all the people on unemployment now and all the old people too. anyone 55 and over?

If you make it about money instead of what it is you can kill a whole lot of people and apparently feel ok about it.

 

[dahermit]

If human life does not matter because they might get welfare or unemployment then why dont we just off all the people on unemployment now and all the old people too. anyone 55 and over?

If you make it about money instead of what it is you can kill a whole lot of people and apparently feel ok about it.

Your argument only is logical if fetus = human life/people. Those of us on the other side of the issue do not accept this despite even Pale's eloquent argument. Being 66 years old, I have seen the effects of our population growth has had on the environment, economy, and the quality of life. Consider for a moment what things would be like in this country if there were 40 million less people ( and no immigration, legal or otherwise, but that is not this issue). It is just not about "money", it is about everything. And yes, I can feel just fine about 40 million fetuses flushed down the toilet. I am not one of those people who can look though a microscope at two cells on a slide and convince myself I see a "baby".

 

[top gun]

Your argument only is logical if fetus = human life/people. Those of us on the other side of the issue do not accept this despite even Pale's eloquent argument. Being 66 years old, I have seen the effects of our population growth has had on the environment, economy, and the quality of life. Consider for a moment what things would be like in this country if there were 40 million less people ( and no immigration, legal or otherwise, but that is not this issue). It is just not about "money", it is about everything. And yes, I can feel just fine about 40 million fetuses flushed down the toilet. I am not one of those people who can look though a microscope at two cells on a slide and convince myself I see a "baby".

You speak wisely. And one doesn't have to even like abortion... they can hate abortion and still be Pro-Choice. All that means is that you place that decision on... not me, or you, or the government, but the actual woman involved.

And I didn't realize you were 66. I'm 52... I knew you were a mature adult after some of the discussions we used to have over some interpretations on guns rights. You have that historian type perspective that the younger crowd sometimes tries to copy but not in as authentic of a way.

Another thing your experience NO DOUBT tells you is that abortions don't stop when they are made illegal. It's always inside a woman's body. It's physically impossible to force someone to carry something around in their body if they're dead set on removing it.

So you've lived through the the times when death and mutilation happened to woman because of self inflicted or non-sterile back ally abortions and you see that as just compounding the problem.

Wise and appreciated input on a very delicate matter.

 

[palerider]

My biggest problem with your "answers" was that you answered my questions with questions... Like you did above.

They deserve no answers because they are red herrings. Either you support allowing one human being to kill another without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reaon or you don't. It is that simple. If you support it, then any claim of respecting rights goes right out the door with the claim. If you don't support it, then why hurl an endless succession of red herrings in an attempt to obsure the core issue?