ronone

Pittsburgh, PA

#1002 Dec 11, 2012
youtube.com/watch... Accidental Baby Bailout

I dunno?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1003 Dec 11, 2012
Jvanleuvan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, that is a very thought provoking post. I would generally agree that I have no authority to impose my moral beliefs on others. However, there have been times in which certain groups of people sought to "force" their morals on others. And some of these outcomes have generally been accepted as good things and have benefitted society. Some examples would be, the Indian revolution, abolitionist movement, and the civil rights movement etc... So, there is a grey area between a righteous movement to protect others and an imposition of beliefs.
Because, remember, there were people vehemently opposed the abolitionists, and the civil right movement. Just as there are now people who oppose what I am saying. Perhaps history will find that I am wrong, but maybe it will find that I'm right.
History does not have to find you wrong, because you are wrong.

The Indian revolution, the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement were examples of the people exercising their right to seek equal protection under the law. The 14th Amendment may have not been written and/or ratified during the Indian revolution and the abolitionist movement, but the entire constitution was written to limit government and recognize rights citizens already have.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1004 Dec 11, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
History does not have to find you wrong, because you are wrong.
The Indian revolution, the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement were examples of the people exercising their right to seek equal protection under the law. The 14th Amendment may have not been written and/or ratified during the Indian revolution and the abolitionist movement, but the entire constitution was written to limit government and recognize rights citizens already have.
And thank you again.

It never fails to amaze me how many American citizens refuse to understand that our Constitution was intended to recognize our rights, rather than limit or quash them. This is a huge part of why proposals of Constitutional Amendments to 'ban gay marriage' or anything else, really infuriate me. The Constitution of the United States is NOT about the business of eliminating rights.

GRRRR.

:)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#1005 Dec 11, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>It is immoral to force, by any means, a woman to continue a medical condition against her will. Pregnancy is most certainly a medical condition. This wouldn't even be up for discussion if men could get pregnant.
Oh, and, yeah, my argument remains the same. I have had the same pro-choice argument for decades. That's because I am absolutely sure that I am correct. You can debate every angle 'til high tea, I will always have a moral right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. My rights will always supersede any a fetus may have.
Pontificate on, good sir;-)
Well said.

:)

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#1006 Dec 11, 2012
Jvanleuvan wrote:
Please explain in which way this statement is flawed. Does a person who willfuly runs a red-light not suffer the burden of the outcomes of that, i.e. a traffic accident and liability for damages? Even though he had no direct INTENT to cause that accident? Law says he does.
Please note that simply driving a car is not what I am speaking about; I am specifically using the analogy of running a RED LIGHT.
AND, I never said that sex is for reproduction only, rather, that it CAN LIKLY CAUSE reproduction. AND that if one engages in a behavior that can LIKLY result in a specific outcome, then one is responsible for that outcome; i have provided examples numerous times above.
You assume that a fetus is not a person, please provide a compelling argument to that effect, I will gladly listen.
I stipulate that a fetus is a person, based on the scientific fact that a fetus is a Human, and my assumption that all humans are persons. The assumption I made I have attempted to provide argument and evidence to defend it.
As to your statement that a woman cannot be required to sustain another with her resources; I provide a counter argument: That the current LAW DOES require that parents(not just women) provide for their children, as evidenced by the existence of child-endangerment and child-abandonment laws. And this sustenance is through the parents' bodily resources, as the parents must physically carry the child, must expend monetary resources (which were earned through labor) to provide for the child, and may even be required to nurse the child if other nutrition is unavailable. Etc..
And people have gotten away with murder, this does not make murder suddenly legal, does it?
No, I find that IF A FETUS IS A PERSON, you know the basis of my argument, that it is their civic duty as well as mine not to kill it.
Sorry if that particular analogy is incorrect. The basis of the argument still stands. That civic duty isn't based on personal gain form that duty. I may never collect welfare yet i pay for it, I may never collect food stamps yet I pay for them. This was a specific response to a specific statement on another post.
Your running a red light analogy is flawed in comparison. Running a red light is breaking a law, the law and the red light is put in place in order to avoid an accident. My analogy of driving a car is more to point. You get into the car to get from point A to point B an accident is possible but that is not the intent nor are you giving consent to be in an accident by simply driving the car.

You are giving every indication with your analogies and your insistence on "consent" that YOU consider sex for procreation only. If a person is practicing a BC method but pregnancy occurs that negates your consent argument entirely. Consent is equal to authorization,having sex for pleasure in no way authorizes pregnancy.

Again, as for "responsibility abortion or going forward with the pregnancy is taking responsibility.

A fetus is not a person. A person is born. A person does not live inside another "person" relying entirely on their body and organs for survival. Current law does not require either parent to sustain a born child with their bodily resources otherwise breast feeding would be mandatory which it is not. Nor is any person required to sustain a life with their bodily resources.

You believe whole heartedly in slavery. You believe a woman must give up her bodily integrity, mandated to undergo a medical/physical condition against her will all for the benefit of another and no benefit to herself and that my dear constitutes slavery.

I find it laughable that you compare pregnancy and child birth to paying for welfare/food stamps as a civic duty without being a recipient. Obviously you are a man who diminishes pregnancy and child birth to something that simple.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1008 Dec 12, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your running a red light analogy is flawed in comparison. Running a red light is breaking a law, the law and the red light is put in place in order to avoid an accident. My analogy of driving a car is more to point. You get into the car to get from point A to point B an accident is possible but that is not the intent nor are you giving consent to be in an accident by simply driving the car.
You are giving every indication with your analogies and your insistence on "consent" that YOU consider sex for procreation only. If a person is practicing a BC method but pregnancy occurs that negates your consent argument entirely. Consent is equal to authorization,having sex for pleasure in no way authorizes pregnancy.
Again, as for "responsibility abortion or going forward with the pregnancy is taking responsibility.
A fetus is not a person. A person is born. A person does not live inside another "person" relying entirely on their body and organs for survival. Current law does not require either parent to sustain a born child with their bodily resources otherwise breast feeding would be mandatory which it is not. Nor is any person required to sustain a life with their bodily resources.
You believe whole heartedly in slavery. You believe a woman must give up her bodily integrity, mandated to undergo a medical/physical condition against her will all for the benefit of another and no benefit to herself and that my dear constitutes slavery.
I find it laughable that you compare pregnancy and child birth to paying for welfare/food stamps as a civic duty without being a recipient. Obviously you are a man who diminishes pregnancy and child birth to something that simple.
And what some people want to ignore is that, even if you DID run a red light and have an accident, you don't have to live with any resulting physical conditions when there is a medical remedy for it.

Even if you were DRINKING and driving, ran a red light, while texting on a cell phone, AND weren't wearing a seat belt, you don't have to live with it.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#1009 Dec 12, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And what some people want to ignore is that, even if you DID run a red light and have an accident, you don't have to live with any resulting physical conditions when there is a medical remedy for it.
Even if you were DRINKING and driving, ran a red light, while texting on a cell phone, AND weren't wearing a seat belt, you don't have to live with it.
LOL!!

I added a line....we could keep this going...Even if you were DRINKING and driving, ran a red light, while having sex and texting the details on a cell phone, AND weren't wearing a seat belt, you don't have to live with it.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#1010 Dec 12, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!
I added a line....we could keep this going...Even if you were DRINKING and driving, ran a red light, while having sex and texting the details on a cell phone, AND weren't wearing a seat belt, you don't have to live with it.
Sorry to interrupt the hilarity, ladies, but that scenario doesn't sound like one anybody would be left living with...well....maybe the relatives.

(Yeah, I know: I'm a major buzzkill.)

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#1011 Dec 12, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to interrupt the hilarity, ladies, but that scenario doesn't sound like one anybody would be left living with...well....maybe the relatives.
(Yeah, I know: I'm a major buzzkill.)
Yeah, but what a way to go! Yeehaw!

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1012 Dec 13, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, but what a way to go! Yeehaw!
I knew I liked you...

")
molly

Lesotho

#1013 Dec 14, 2012
good we are up at last for our rigths

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1014 Dec 14, 2012
molly wrote:
good we are up at last for our rigths
Where in the world is 'Lesotho'?
cool

Atlanta, GA

#1017 Jan 14, 2013
i believe that daniel has some good posts. thank you
cool

Atlanta, GA

#1018 Jan 17, 2013
sweet
sgah

Coventry, UK

#1019 Feb 7, 2013
however i have a question that in the bible it says that 'thou shall no kill' so does that not hold any importance because by allowing abortions to take place then it would be like disrespecting the Christianity faith and also many other faiths such as Islam who are taught by the Qur'an that by killing one person it's like killing the whole humanity. just a tricky question
religion

Coventry, UK

#1020 Feb 7, 2013
however in the bible it also teaches people not to commit rape and killing so if a person is raped then would that still be fine to let her carry on her pregnancy if she doesn't wish to. this in that circumstance would be the most loving thing to do and let her abort the bay as if it was born and the mother had neglected the baby then that would not be the right justice to the baby either.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#1021 Feb 7, 2013
sgah wrote:
however i have a question that in the bible it says that 'thou shall no kill' so does that not hold any importance because by allowing abortions to take place then it would be like disrespecting the Christianity faith and also many other faiths such as Islam who are taught by the Qur'an that by killing one person it's like killing the whole humanity. just a tricky question
The bible says a lot of crap. I for one do not live my life of dance around a book of mythology hoping I don't disrespect it. There are varying opinions and philosophies in the christian religion, nobody is in complete agreement. As for Islam:

Before four months of gestation
Seyed al-Sabiq, author of Fiqh al-Sunnah, has summarized the views of the classical jurists in this regard in the following words:
Abortion is not allowed after four months have passed since conception because at that time it is akin to taking a life, an act that entails penalty in this world and in the Hereafter. As regards the matter of abortion before this period elapses, it is considered allowed if necessary. However, in the absence of a reasonable excuse it is detestable. The author of ‘Subul-ul-Maram’ writes: "A woman’s treatment for aborting a pregnancy before the spirit has been blown into it is a matter upon which scholars differed on account of difference of opinion on the matter of ‘Azal (i.e. measures to hinder conception). Those who allow ‘Azal consider abortion as allowable and vice versa." The same ruling should be applicable for women deciding on sterilization. Imam Ghazzali opines: "Induced abortion is a sin after conception". He further says: "The sin incurred thus can be of degrees. When the sperm enters the ovaries, mixes with the ovum and acquires potential of life, its removal would be a sin. Aborting it after it grows into a germ or a leech would be a graver sin and the graveness of the sin increases very much if one does so after the stage when the spirit is blown into the fetus and it acquires human form and faculties."[4]
[edit]Threat to the woman's life
On the issue of the life of the woman, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the woman is considered the "original source of life", while the fetus is only "potential" life.[5] Muslim jurists agree that abortion is allowed based on the principle that "the greater evil [the woman's death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion]." In these cases the physician is considered a better judge than the scholar.[6]
[edit]Rape
Most Muslim scholars hold that the child of rape is a legitimate child and thus it would be sinful to kill this child. Scholars permit its abortion only if the fetus is less than four months old, or if it endangers the life of its mother.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_aborti...
thuhbadguy

Syracuse, IN

#1022 Feb 19, 2013
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
The 332,278 abortions Planned Parenthood performed over the 365 days of 2009 equals an average of 910 lives terminated per day--or about 38 per hour, or one every 95 seconds.
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
mur·der (műrdr)
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
bru·tal (brtl)
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
in·hu·man (n-hymn)
1.
a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
b. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1023 Feb 19, 2013
thuhbadguy wrote:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
The 332,278 abortions Planned Parenthood performed over the 365 days of 2009 equals an average of 910 lives terminated per day--or about 38 per hour, or one every 95 seconds.
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
mur·der (műrdr)
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
bru·tal (brtl)
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
in·hu·man (n-hymn)
1.
a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
b. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
Brutality and inhumanity are rather hard to argue, when we're talking about a group of undifferentiated cells, alive or not. A cockroach has more neural impulses than an eight week human fetus, and I have a feeling you kill them routinely, and without a second thought.

Peddle your guilt trip elsewhere...you can start with Congress, which has slashed support systems for BORN children routinely, for the last 20 years.

Next...
Aurelia johannes ndeshi

Ashburn, VA

#1024 Feb 27, 2013
Abrtion shuld b legalisd 4 th fact tht sme pregnancies r nt planed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr feces for jesus 307,110
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) Sat Estelle 219,638
An Ar AppealTHANK You for Your Help! We Made it Fri cuninglingwist 1
Jim Bob Duggar Says Petition To Cancel '19 Kids... Thu Belle Sexton 15
Studies Show Voters Can Be Swayed on Gay Marria... Dec 25 Head Hunter 35
Abortion Activist Hates Ultrasound Photos Becau... Dec 25 Deborah 1
Positive Alternatives drives down abortion numb... (Jul '12) Dec 23 Zach 2
More from around the web