Abortion Debate - Jacksonville, FL

[xCentristFiasco]

Merely on the basis of an individual's Right to Life. Since when can anyone say that something isn't human when they become "fully human" in a matter of weeks?

[Toaster]

I's a personal decision .

[Robert]

xCentristFiasco wrote:

Merely on the basis of an individual's Right to Life. Since when can anyone say that something isn't human when they become "fully human" in a matter of weeks?

Everyone draws a line except for the few who believe that birth control is wrong and killing it is just a question of where they draw the line

[FLBeaver]

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone draws a line except for the few who believe that birth control is wrong and killing it is just a question of where they draw the line

Hitler, Stalin and the KKK drew a line as well. In parts of the world people today draw the line based on gender. If it's a personal decision to draw the line at one end why not allow people to draw the line at the other end and as the President said, just give them a old sick parent a pill and let them die?

One of the problems with the pro-choice stance is that it's impossible to defend the location of the line. Why is it ok at X but wrong one hour later? Why is it a personal choice unless that personal choice is to abort only girls?

I would love someone to actually give a logical explanation as to why an abortion at X is morally ok, but it's morally wrong an hour later.

[The Truth]

I'm not a pregnant woman so it's none of my business..

[FLBeaver]

The Truth wrote:

I'm not a pregnant woman so it's none of my business..

So if your wife/girlfriend made a "private decision" about your child, you'd be ok with that?

How about if in a few decades your kids made a decision about your end-of-life care as well?

[King of wisdom]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
So if your wife/girlfriend made a "private decision" about your child, you'd be ok with that?
How about if in a few decades your kids made a decision about your end-of-life care as well?

So if your wife ,girlfriend, daughter or or granddaughter was raped and impregnated you would be ok with that? After all a life is a life...

What gives you the right to dictate terms? How would you like me to shove my boot up your ass, and not letting you shit it out for 9 months?

[Toaster]

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone draws a line except for the few who believe that birth control is wrong and killing it is just a question of where they draw the line

Common sense should tell us if you have the ability to pay for and raise a child in a good environment ,and you want a child it's your
decision,but if you do not have the ability to do all of those things you should be on birth control, and religion should not be involved in that decision. Blacks do not use birth control obviously, and look at the condition of that culture,and the cost to tax payers to support their lifestyle.

[FLBeaver]

King of wisdom wrote:

<quoted text>
So if your wife ,girlfriend, daughter or or granddaughter was raped and impregnated you would be ok with that? After all a life is a life...
What gives you the right to dictate terms? How would you like me to shove my boot up your ass, and not letting you shit it out for 9 months?

"So if your wife,girlfriend, daughter or or granddaughter was raped and impregnated you would be ok with that?" No. Rape is a crime and should be. Where would you get the idea that I would think it would be ok?

If you go through the posts, and there are less then ten so you should be able to handle that, you'll notice I never said I was against someone getting an abortion in the case of rape. I never said it was ok either. I asked if someone could actually articulate a logical reason as to where they drew their line and why at X they considered an abortion morally acceptable but an hour later it was morally wrong. As usually, you can't read or think.

So the reason why abortion should be legal in your opinion is because you'll "shove your boot up my ass, and not let me shit out of it out for 9 months." Well, at least you continue to confirm the high level of thinking you are capable of.

I know this is going to be beyond you but just for grins. You asked "what gives you the right to dictate terms?" As a society we do that all the time. You even brought up one example; rape. Society has dictated the terms as to when sex is and is not a crime. There are countless other examples where society dictates terms to the people. Some we agree with and some we don't. And that's what our political system is about.

[noshellswill]

There is a nasty **slippery slope**.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/...

A child conceived-of-rape is an "unjust aggressor" on the woman thus permitting a **self-defense** argument for such abortions.

No, the child does **NOT** need to be morally culpable, as an enraged adult attacker would not be on his (first) "theologic drunk", a Negroo Neolithic on krak or a starving, job-stealing weeetbakkk. He could still -- without moral prejudice -- be shot-dead for his unprovoked aggression.

[noshellswill]

IN cases of rape, the conceived child is an "unjust aggressor" on the woman. Abortion then is "self-defense".

[Toaster]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
So if your wife/girlfriend made a "private decision" about your child, you'd be ok with that?
How about if in a few decades your kids made a decision about your end-of-life care as well?

Completely different subject on the end of life care,especially if I was paying for it.

[FLBeaver]

Toaster wrote:

<quoted text>
Completely different subject on the end of life care,especially if I was paying for it.

What's the difference between saying it's ok for someone to get an abortion because the child would be a financial burden, and saying it's ok to eliminate one's elderly parent because they are a financial burden?

If getting an abortion is a "personal decision" for Jane Doe, why isn't the choice to eliminate Jane Doe's parent also a "personal decision"?

Hopefully you can see I'm not advocating one position or another. I've been asking for logical reasons as to why abortion should be considered morally ok. The poll had more people saying it was ok than not. So what are the reasons why is it ok and are those good reasons or do they really reflect an underlying desire not to really think about the issue and all of it's implications?

[Toaster]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
What's the difference between saying it's ok for someone to get an abortion because the child would be a financial burden, and saying it's ok to eliminate one's elderly parent because they are a financial burden?
If getting an abortion is a "personal decision" for Jane Doe, why isn't the choice to eliminate Jane Doe's parent also a "personal decision"?
Hopefully you can see I'm not advocating one position or another. I've been asking for logical reasons as to why abortion should be considered morally ok. The poll had more people saying it was ok than not. So what are the reasons why is it ok and are those good reasons or do they really reflect an underlying desire not to really think about the issue and all of it's implications?

My point was if I personally am paying for my end of life care it's not costing tax payers anything, on the other hand anyone with out the means to care for and provide for a child should be forced to be on birth control. I feel no obligation to pay for another persons child whether illegitimate or otherwise. There should be laws in place to protect tax payers from this. Entitlements to losers is out of control, and sooner or later will have to be addressed.

[Randy]

Blacks should be encouraged to have abortions, in order to keep the crime rate down.

[FLBeaver]

Toaster wrote:

<quoted text>
My point was if I personally am paying for my end of life care it's not costing tax payers anything, on the other hand anyone with out the means to care for and provide for a child should be forced to be on birth control. I feel no obligation to pay for another persons child whether illegitimate or otherwise. There should be laws in place to protect tax payers from this. Entitlements to losers is out of control, and sooner or later will have to be addressed.

I don't know about you, but when I had my first I didn't have the "means to care for and provide for a child". It's the old saw that if you wait until you can "afford" to get married or have children, no one ever would do either.:-)

I do understand what you mean, but this country actually did forced sterilization until 1983. I think the chances of it coming back are smaller than Barney Franks getting elected President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_steri...

Given that Hitler was a big fan of it, I don't think you want to run around telling folks that Hitler had it right. Because, again, going to the idea of a logical argument, how do you determine who has the means to have children? As Cain and my father would say, they were po' before they become poor. No matter what standard you set, you are going to have scientists, economists, entertainers, athletes, etc, all making a lot more money than you and I who would fall under your definition.

[Toaster]

Randy wrote:

Blacks should be encouraged to have abortions, in order to keep the crime rate down.

100% agree with you. Black crime rate all over the US is out of control. It's a cultural thing that cost tax payers billions of $$$.

[FLBeaver]

Randy wrote:

Blacks should be encouraged to have abortions, in order to keep the crime rate down.

They already are, by their community leaders and the D's.

According to the CDC, since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court Decision Roe vs. Wade, 13 million (13,000,000) African American lives have been lost to abortion. The CDC reports that of the approximately 4,000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1,452 of them are performed on African American women and their pre-born children. This means that although African Americans represent only 12% of the population of the United States, they account for 35% of the abortions performed in this country.

[Toaster]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know about you, but when I had my first I didn't have the "means to care for and provide for a child". It's the old saw that if you wait until you can "afford" to get married or have children, no one ever would do either.:-)
I do understand what you mean, but this country actually did forced sterilization until 1983. I think the chances of it coming back are smaller than Barney Franks getting elected President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_steri...
Given that Hitler was a big fan of it, I don't think you want to run around telling folks that Hitler had it right. Because, again, going to the idea of a logical argument, how do you determine who has the means to have children? As Cain and my father would say, they were po' before they become poor. No matter what standard you set, you are going to have scientists, economists, entertainers, athletes, etc, all making a lot more money than you and I who would fall under your definition.

You don't have to be rich to understand what you can or cannot afford, and birth control is even provided free by the government.
I could care less about the religious aspect of the discussion. I'm forced to pay taxes to support people that have kids they can't afford, churches don't pay income taxes, and I hope that get's changed very soon. They need to help fund the BS they believe in with tax revenues too.

[King of wisdom]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>

I asked if someone could actually articulate a logical reason as to where they drew their line and why at X they considered an abortion morally acceptable but an hour later it was morally wrong.

I dont believe that anyone has the right to draw a line when it comes to abortion except for the woman that is carrying the unborn baby...

So do you consider the unborn baby of a woman that was raped justifiable for terminating? If so, why?... Being that none of the unborn babys had any choice in the matter..