I am not sure what the above means but if abortion were illegal she should have a choice to follow the law or break it.
So it's ok for her to kill the baby, as long as she gets punished for it afterwards? And how has this scenario made society a better place?
We don't outlaw stealing with the idea of, "you can steal if you want to, just be aware that it's illegal." The idea of making something illegal is to take away that choice by creating such an imbalance in the prospective benefits of the options, that one would have to be foolish to think the illegal option was actually the better one. So to outlaw abortion is an attempt to take away that choice by making the consequences of having an abortion far worse than those of not having one. So even if you want to claim there somehow is a choice, it's certainly not a fair one.
The main point I want to make though is that to outlaw abortion is to trample on the rights of a woman in a major way. You can't simply pass it off as her responsibility. In this country she ought to have a choice as to whether she wants to accept that responsibility or not, and you're trying to deny her that choice. That is a fact.
Your argument can not be that her rights are not being ignored for they most certainly are. Rather, your argument can only be that her rights are outweighed by the rights of the fetus to live. But to say that a fetus is the equivalent of a human and deserving of the same rights as any other human is an opinion, and one that is not shared by everyone. So in the end, you are asking the government to ignore the rights of millions of it citizens based only on an opinion that may not even be shared by those whose rights are being trampled upon.
Here I go wrestling with Pumas again, I still think it would be easier but anything worth having is worth the pain I guess.
I understand those who feel that the woman's choice comes down to being the final solution and or factor. I would agree, but now another innocent life is in the picture. And that is where most of the disagreement seems to come into focus.
I think that anytime that sex is consensual and results in a life being created that the persons involved should take responsibility. If the Mother's life is in danger as well it could be justified and should be allowed as well. I am not an absolutist that says we should never allow someone to do so.
I have seen many say in the past and recently on here that if we outlawed abortion that many people would be having dangerous "back alley" abortions. The argument doesn't hold water with me. If abortion is made illegal again except in the above mentioned circumstances, then that person would be breaking the law. Should the person be injured due to breaking the law then I have little sympathy for them. Just as I have zero sympathy for someone who injures themself trying to blow up an abortion clinic.
Why? becasue the law is the law. While I would understand the motives in both cases, no mattter what your stance on abortion is if the law were changed it needs to be respected. To change a law becuase some might break it is ridiculos. Murder is against the law, should we change it because people break it ? Speeding is breaking a law, so should we abolish speed limits because many break the limit ? So to say a reason not for banning abortion is because people would be having them in back alleys or dangerous conditions might be tru and would happen in some cases. Does not make it a reason to stop it or change the law. For now it's legal and we need to obey and respect that law. And anyone who tries to harm someone who performs abortions is guilty of a crime. Just as someone who had a "back alley" abortion if it's outlawed. So should we legalize abortion clinic bobmbings since people break the law anyway? of course not.
BTW on a side note. My friend recently had a vasectomy. When he went into the clinic he was told that his wife had to sign a consent form. He was outraged and refused to have it signed, his wife knew and approved of his decision. Finally they called his wife at work and she said o.k go ahead. I just found it odd that his wife could go in, have an abortion without his knowledge. And yet he had to get an o.k from his wife to have a vasectomy. I don't think this is due to any law but probably to prevent lawsuits. It just struck me as odd and a double standard. Has anyone else heard of this ?
More logical conclusions for you. Back alley abortions end in death for both the mother tand the child. FACT. So now you have two deaths. Congratulations!
And then there's the fact that women with money will not have to suffer that indignity but can fly to Europe or enter discreet clinics where no questions are asked - just like it used to be, must I remind you?, leaving women without means to die at the hands of butchers.
Seems to me that we have just traded one kind of 'butchery' for another.
Next time guys, you ram a coathanger up your .... and then we will talk.
It may sound callous as H--, but I fathered five, and truly, although they have all turned out reasonably well, their Mother and I have often agreed that someone else could have had the last three. (Catholic notions and all that...1950s).
It is not deniable that one of the greatest perils facing the Race today is, and will continue to be, over-population; down the historical road, we could end by starving ourselves into extinction; ergo, abortion could base its case right there: SURVIVAL!!
my husband had a vasectomy, and he didn't need my permission, I think that's the most stupid thing Iv'e ever heard of! his body....his decision! these doctors sound like idiots to me!
No I didn't, the idiot with the bumper sticker is missing the point. The idiot with the sticker is so arrogant as to believe that men have no say in the abortion issue.
My money says that it was NOT a "Man" driving that car
Obviously
Women don't like it that men are the ones that debate this issue and women's rights under current law ad nauseum, and in spite of the fact that they will never have to make the decision, unless maybe their wife is dangerously close to death and it is either her or the baby, and she's comatose...?
What women?
I don't believe for one minute that women are the only ones that are affected or should have a say in the abortion issue.
In our society, all points of view are valid, but responsibility for bearing a child, still remains within in the purview of the female, in the final analysis.
What kind of a world is it that criminalizes one of the basic functions of a woman's body - bearing children- when it forces her to choose between having the child or not? Jethro's sort of world makes her and the child's subsequent life so horrible - she's a whore remember for having a child out of wedlock. If she goes to one of their clinics, she's treated like a brain dead child.
On another point, and this I had to consider deeply to get the emotions out of the way, what makes anyone think there's anything 'convenient' about the entire process? What, you think its just 'Oh, dear! I'm just stepping out to the corner store for a pound of abortion. Be back soonest!' Use of that expression makes my blood boil! One of the most harrowing decisions she'll ever have to make equated with just stepping out for a loaf of bread! GOD ROT THEIR SCROTUMS!!! Sorry, almost lost it there for a moment.
You are quite right, Will. The only purpose really served by this thread is to allow Luv2Fly to wrestle pumas and for the rest of us to vent.
....what makes anyone think there's anything 'convenient' about the entire process?
It's a hell of a lot more 'convenient' than raising a child for 18-21 years.
One of the most harrowing decisions she'll ever have to make equated with just stepping out for a loaf of bread!
I haven't seen anyone equate abortion with stepping out for a loaf of bread. It's the pro-abortionists that minimalize abortion ("It's merely tissue").
GOD ROT THEIR SCROTUMS!!!
Was that called for? Does that help your argument in some way?
You are quite right, Will. The only purpose really served by this thread is to allow Luv2Fly to wrestle pumas and for the rest of us to vent.
I still think wrestling puma's would be easier. abortion is a very emotional debate. There are many varying opinions and outlooks. No one is neccisarily right and no one is neccisarily wrong. My only point was that whatever your outlook on it, right now it is legal to have an abortion. Would I like to see that stopped ? Sure I would. Would I support or applaud anyone who would bomb an abortion clinic or killed a doctor who performs them ? Not a chance, they are just as wrong and should be prosecuted. What I was saying is that if the law is changed back again the law has to be respected. Using the argument that "we;; if we outlaw it, women will have back alley abortions" Or some other thing about rich women flying to europe. Then those women would be breaking the law in doing so if the law is changed. We don't nor shouldn't decide law on who might break it. If it is a good law and the majority of the people think we should have it as law, so be it. Like it or not it has to be obeyed. Right now abortion is legal, something I may find horrid but nonetheless legal. And that's where the zealots lose many supporters including me.
What kind of a world is it that criminalizes one of the basic functions of a woman's body - bearing children- when it forces her to choose between having the child or not? A world that values life. The choice comes with having sex. If a woman gets pregnant she should be responsible enough not to kill.
On another point, and this I had to consider deeply to get the emotions out of the way, what makes anyone think there's anything 'convenient' about the entire process? What, you think its just 'Oh, dear! I'm just stepping out to the corner store for a pound of abortion. Be back soonest!' Use of that expression makes my blood boil! One of the most harrowing decisions she'll ever have to make equated with just stepping out for a loaf of bread! Many women have an abortion out of CONVEINIENCE.
but that would depend upon whose stats were being used.
Of course, we all respect the law, Luv2Fly. Although the fact that I as a trained GI type person in a war zone was not only permitted but encouraged to slaughter enemies but oh, dear, me, my not to have an abortion because THAT would be murder! - well it does kind of give one to think that Americans are schizo.
As far as I am aware the 6th Commandment is NOT a conditional statement.
Of course, we all respect the law, Luv2Fly. Although the fact that I as a trained GI type person in a war zone was not only permitted but encouraged to slaughter enemies but oh, dear, me, my not to have an abortion because THAT would be murder! - well it does kind of give one to think that Americans are schizo.
How do you equate killing your enemy in combat where it's you or them vs. killing a baby in the womb ? Killing an enemy in battle is not considered murder. There is a huge difference and as a former member of our armed forces I don't see how you can equate the two or make the connection between murder or killing a baby in an abortion and killing your enemy in combat. Perhaps you could elaborate, since my coffee pot went on the blink this morning and I've only had one cup of mud.
As far as I am aware the 6th Commandment is NOT a conditional statement.
I would tend to agree with you on that. I don't want to get into a biblical discussion since someones religion or non religious beliefs is more personal than most things. However the bible also talks about killing thy enemies. There are many things that could be considered contradictory in the bible. "Turn the other cheek." and then it says "An eye for an eye" There are many passages etc. that can be used for either side to argue wether killing in a war is "permissible" etc or not under god's law. Again it is very open to the persons interpretation.
BTW From what I remember seeing in your posts to Bill Fold you were in the A.F correct ? I was always jealous of the people in the A.F, they had top notch facilities and seeing as how I've always loved aircraft they had some of the neatest stuff in the air. I spent some time at Peterson A.F.B in CO. near the academy. Wow, what a base. Their enlisted mess looked nicer than our Marine Officer mess.
since the Bible is the ultimate basis for jethro and his position on this topic that I'd bring up that little inconsistency.
The essential difference in the above post was that as an 'instrument of the state' I could blast away but NOT as an individual person with presumably some say over how her body was being used. Another inconsistency.
Yes the Marines aren't known for their ritzy facilities. Of course, in the AF you have to know how to fold a napkin and have to be on time for your tee off - so there are trade offs in every service.
Is it worth it to take the life of even one person just for the convenience of your freedom?
Well let's see. It's your freedom that allows you and I to be having this discussion. It's freedom that allows us to also critcize our government or ELECTED officials. It is your freedom that allows you to be whatever you want to be. It is your freedom that allows your children to have it better than you. It is your freedom that let's you choose to worship or not as YOU see fit. It is freedom that many countries strive and fight wars over and have for thousands of years. It's freedom that brings thousands to our shores and risk their lives in some cases to do so.
The list of why freedom and the ones we enjoy are great and numerous. There have been many who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to do so in the past for them and YOU. They found it important enough to lay everything on the line and there were people who stood in the way of that. You would not be doing what you are today if those had decided it was not important and YES to take the lives of those who wished to take our freedom. Was it worth taking the life of a Brtitish soliders life in the revolutionary war ? Was it worth taking the life of a confederate soilder ? Was it worth taking the life of a German or Japanese soilder ? YES. If it wasn't to you than apparently you prefer to live under tyranny, oppression or murderous regimes.
Does it matter?
Maybe not to someone who calls freedom a mere convienience. Ask the women and children who lived under the Taliban that question.
So if it's ok to kill for the sake of the convenience freedom provides you, why do you have a problem with abortion? You are saying that the quality of your life is more important than the right to life of the people you must kill to ensure that freedom. So why would you want to deny women the freedom to determine the quality of their lives?
Was it worth taking the life of a Brtitish soliders life in the revolutionary war ? Was it worth taking the life of a confederate soilder ? Was it worth taking the life of a German or Japanese soilder ? YES.
But you're butchering HUMANS just to try and make your life better. The Americans were the ones who decided to live in the colonies instead of Britain. Didn't they have a responsibility to be loyal to their government instead of killing British citizens just so they could pay less in taxes?
So if it's ok to kill for the sake of the convenience freedom provides you, why do you have a problem with abortion?
Because I have never been attacked or shot at by a fetus.
A baby is an innocent being who is at the mercy of the mother.
You are saying that the quality of your life is more important than the right to life of the people you must kill to ensure that freedom.
Yes I am, obviously you've never been in that situation. If somoene's shooting at you. I promise you won't take time to consider if they have more of a right to life than you or their political affiliation. Good thing for the slaves it wasn't up to you and that some found their quality of life a bit more important than the Southerners right to life. (I forgot, freedom is just a convienience ) Was the quality of life more important to the Jews than the lives of a German soilder? Geez.
So why would you want to deny women the freedom to determine the quality of their lives?
Why would you deny the freedom of an innocent child to be born ?
Here's a little news flash for ya. If people had brushed off freedom as a petty little thing and a as mere convienince as you call it. How many countries under tyranical rule let the people dedcide what laws they want? Without that freedom that others have died and YES, killed for, we wouldn't be able to decide as a FREE society If not to have or not to have abortions and you wouldn't have to worry about it. I oppose abortion and think it's wrong. Right now it's legal and I have to respect that and work within the system and legally to change it if I choose. I would also defend the law and the right to have that abortion because it's current law. If an outside force tries to interupt those freedoms or take them away, then I would fight to protect it even though I might dislike a portion of it. It's called freedom and we have the freedom to allow abortions and the freedom to not allow them. It's up to us to decide. Without freedom you wouldn't be able to decide, someone would do that for you, how convienient for you.
What I was saying is that if the law is changed back again the law has to be respected. Using the argument that "well if we outlaw it, women will have back alley abortions" Or some other thing about rich women flying to europe. Then those women would be breaking the law in doing so if the law is changed. We don't nor shouldn't decide law on who might break it.
I disagree. Do you never exceed 55mph on the highway (or 70 in the outer areas)? That's not to mention the dozens of silly laws on the books still in many places. I'd say they are bad laws because not only does no one obey them, no one really wants to obey them. And what about when there were laws dictating things like where blacks could and could not go. It's possible a majority of people supported those laws, but that didn't mean they were right.
The value of a law is whether it helps to make society a better and happier place to be. How would outlawing abortion make anyone happier? The people who seek one anyway will be much worse off. Those who wanted one but are forced to have the baby anyway aren't going to be any happier. Is society in general going to be happier because we now have a few more children that were born to parents who didn't want them? Are the children happier simply because they exist? They couldn't have been unhappy if they were never born. No one sits around lamenting the fact they don't exist. Do you possibly believe there are souls of aborted babies sitting up in heaven all pissed off because they were never born?
Granted any law is likely to impose hardship on some segment of society. Laws against murder make the lives of murderes miserable. Laws against stealing hamper the lives of thieves. The question is, is that hardship outweighed by a greater benefit to the society as a whole? In the case of murder and theft, I believe yes it does. In the case of abortion, I don't see it.
Was it worth taking the life of a Brtitish soliders life in the revolutionary war ? Was it worth taking the life of a confederate soilder ? Was it worth taking the life of a German or Japanese soilder ? YES.
But you're butchering HUMANS just to try and make your life better. The Americans were the ones who decided to live in the colonies instead of Britain. Didn't they have a responsibility to be loyal to their government instead of killing British citizens just so they could pay less in taxes?
Take a history lesson or two, it wasn't just about taxes, ever heard of the church of England ? Freedom of religion mean anything to you ? No probably not, forget it.
O.K, got it sure o.k we were better off living in repression. And the Jews were better off under Nazi's too, just because they were trying to better their lives. Hell we should have let Japan come on in. Why not. I'm sure they would be open
But you're butchering HUMANS just to try and make your life better
How easy for you to say if you weren't a slave or a Jew or repressed. Of course it's easy for you since you have all these freedoms afforded you by those who did so. Hmm, interesting. Then again I am debating with someone who sees freedom as a convienience instead of a basic human right. You definately are in wonderland.
Here's a little news flash for ya. If people had brushed off freedom as a petty little thing and a as mere convienince as you call it.
Yet many of you would brush off a woman's freedom to choose what happens with her body as a mere convenience. See what I'm getting at now?
I'm not really trying to say that freedom is unimportant. I'm just taking the argument to its illogical end. You say quality of life and freedom are worth killing for. Fine. Now I'm saying that same argument applies to abortion. Fighting for your freedom isn't just about self-defense. In the Revolutionary War, the Americans were hardly fighting just a defensive war. In the Civil War it was the Union that went on the offensive. And in more recent wars Americans have gone on the offensive in the name of protecting freedom. I don't really believe that freedom isn't worth killing for. Of course it is. But by that same principle, abortion should be legal.
Because I have never been attacked or shot at by a fetus.
No one is asking you to kill one. But if a woman feels her quality of life is under attack by the fetus, shouldn't she be able to defend herself?
A baby is an innocent being who is at the mercy of the mother.
Everyone is born into sin. No one is truly innocent. I suppose you think it's wrong to eat the "cute" animals too. But that point aside, what does someone have to actually do to deserve death? Don't innocent civilians get killed in war sometimes, and yet it's justified as part of the fight to preserve freedom and our way of life? At the end of World War II don't you think there were some Germans soldiers who were simply trying to defend their land from being invaded by Americans? Were they deserving of death just because they were opposing us? Either it's ok to kill to protect your way of life or it isn't. You can't get away with saying some people deserve it and some don't.
Yet many of you would brush off a woman's freedom to choose what happens with her body as a mere convenience.
Women have all the freedom in the world regarding their bodies. Except in very few circumstances it was her freedom that got her pregnant in the first place. If it wasn't for her freedom to do with her body as she wished, she would never have become pregnant.
I disagree. Do you never exceed 55mph on the highway (or 70 in the outer areas)? That's not to mention the dozens of silly laws on the books still in many places. I'd say they are bad laws because not only does no one obey them, no one really wants to obey them.
It's up to the individual to decide if they wish to break the law and also to suffer the consequences should they choose to do so. It's up to society to make those laws and those within society to work to change them if they feel it's bad law. Just as they did to outlaw jim crow laws in the south. So if we use your logic and a law can be broken because we feel it's "silly" or stupid, I can go bomb an abortion clinic because I feel the law is bad ? Of course not, I could do it but their would be consequences. If you don't like the law work to change it or elect the people who reflect that view.
It's possible a majority of people supported those laws, but that didn't mean they were right.
Exactly see above, A majority eventually thought jim crow laws were wrong and worked to change them. Same as abortion, it's how law and the making of law works. Right now it's legal and I have to respect it. If I choose not to respect ot then I face the consequences.
Are the children happier simply because they exist? They couldn't have been unhappy if they were never born.
Too bad we can't ask them, are you glad to be alive ?
No one sits around lamenting the fact they don't exist.
I'm sure you don't Many do, more than you know but I'm glad you speak for everyone.
In the Civil War it was the Union that went on the offensive
Next on the history channel the real story of Northern agression. Huh ? Pick up a history book and take a peek at who did the offense, hint, the south was within 15 miles of Washinton D.C
I don't really believe that freedom isn't worth killing for. Of course it is. But by that same principle, abortion should be legal.
That's fine that you do, that was my whole point that without that freedom we as a society wouldn't be able to decide. It would be a king, an emporer or furher.
At the end of World War II don't you think there were some Germans soldiers who were simply trying to defend their land from being invaded by Americans? Were they deserving of death just because they were opposing us?
Yes. If they are trying to kill you I guarantee you won't give a hoot what their motives are. All you know is that they are trying to kill you and if you don't kill them they will succeed. It's called a survival instinct and everyone has one.
A baby is an innocent being who is at the mercy of the mother.
Everyone is born into sin. No one is truly innocent.
O.K what have they done that would be a sin ? How would a baby have any sin at all ? what would their sin be ?
And how easy for you to say when you're not a woman.
since the Bible is the ultimate basis for jethro and his position on this topic that I'd bring up that little inconsistency. If you believe that you are wrong. That you are wrong is par for you.
Which brings us back to killing innocent people for the sake of preserving one's freedom and quality of life. Like I said, you can't pretend that you're able to draw a line. Fighting for your freedom goes far beyond simply shooting back at people who are shooting at you.
So if we use your logic and a law can be broken because we feel it's "silly" or stupid, I can go bomb an abortion clinic because I feel the law is bad?
No, my point was that just because something is a law, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, or even that it’s supported by the society. Laws that no one obeys are one such example. And there are some things, that if they passed a law against it, I would still do. In fact there are some things that are technically illegal that I don’t agree with and do anyway (and I don’t mean drugs).
Too bad we can't ask them, are you glad to be alive?
Actually I think it’s just as well that we can’t ask them. And yes, I enjoy being alive, but if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t have the capacity to be upset about it.
No one sits around lamenting the fact they don't exist. I'm sure you don't Many do, more than you know but I'm glad you speak for everyone.
Of course I don’t sit around lamenting the fact I don’t exist because in fact I do exist. As for those who are upset about the fact they don’t exist, can you provide even one example?
Pick up a history book and take a peek at who did the offense, hint, the south was within 15 miles of Washinton D.C.
Washington D.C. was very close to the South, and yes, they did make a few forays into northern territory, most notably at Gettysburg, but the Southerners were hardly the aggressors. They had no desire to conquer the northern states. They simply wanted to defeat the army that was trying to force them to stay in the Union. It was the North that had to go in and essentially conquer the South to get them to stay. 90% of the war was fought on Southern territory. Do you recall Sherman’s March and the burning of everything along the way? Had the U.S. simply let the South secede, there would have been no need for war. Yet we justified the deaths of everyone in that war by saying it preserved the strength of our society. So again, we see it’s ok to kill for the sake of preserving your way of life.
At the end of World War II don't you think there were some Germans soldiers who were simply trying to defend their land from being invaded by Americans? Were they deserving of death just because they were opposing us?
Yes. If they are trying to kill you I guarantee you won't give a hoot what their motives are. All you know is that they are trying to kill you and if you don't kill them they will succeed. It's called a survival instinct and everyone has one.
But who said we had to go into Germany in the first place? If you weren’t on their land, they might not have been shooting at you. Besides, I’m not talking about the experience of the individual soldier, I’m talking about the decision to go into Germany in the first place. Would you disagree that we shouldn’t have gone in and killed all those Germans because their right to life superceded America’s agenda to preserve our way of life? If not, and the right to be free and choose your own destiny supercedes the right to life of someone who threatens that, then you shouldn’t be against abortion.
O.K what have they done that would be a sin? How would a baby have any sin at all ? what would their sin be ?
It’s in the Bible. Everyone is born into sin and no one is truly innocent in God’s eyes without forgiveness.
I am not sure what the above means but if abortion were illegal she should have a choice to follow the law or break it.
So it's ok for her to kill the baby, as long as she gets punished for it afterwards? And how has this scenario made society a better place?
We don't outlaw stealing with the idea of, "you can steal if you want to, just be aware that it's illegal." The idea of making something illegal is to take away that choice by creating such an imbalance in the prospective benefits of the options, that one would have to be foolish to think the illegal option was actually the better one. So to outlaw abortion is an attempt to take away that choice by making the consequences of having an abortion far worse than those of not having one. So even if you want to claim there somehow is a choice, it's certainly not a fair one.
The main point I want to make though is that to outlaw abortion is to trample on the rights of a woman in a major way. You can't simply pass it off as her responsibility. In this country she ought to have a choice as to whether she wants to accept that responsibility or not, and you're trying to deny her that choice. That is a fact.
Your argument can not be that her rights are not being ignored for they most certainly are. Rather, your argument can only be that her rights are outweighed by the rights of the fetus to live. But to say that a fetus is the equivalent of a human and deserving of the same rights as any other human is an opinion, and one that is not shared by everyone. So in the end, you are asking the government to ignore the rights of millions of it citizens based only on an opinion that may not even be shared by those whose rights are being trampled upon.
Here I go wrestling with Pumas again, I still think it would be easier but anything worth having is worth the pain I guess.
I understand those who feel that the woman's choice comes down to being the final solution and or factor. I would agree, but now another innocent life is in the picture. And that is where most of the disagreement seems to come into focus.
I think that anytime that sex is consensual and results in a life being created that the persons involved should take responsibility. If the Mother's life is in danger as well it could be justified and should be allowed as well. I am not an absolutist that says we should never allow someone to do so.
I have seen many say in the past and recently on here that if we outlawed abortion that many people would be having dangerous "back alley" abortions. The argument doesn't hold water with me. If abortion is made illegal again except in the above mentioned circumstances, then that person would be breaking the law. Should the person be injured due to breaking the law then I have little sympathy for them. Just as I have zero sympathy for someone who injures themself trying to blow up an abortion clinic.
Why? becasue the law is the law. While I would understand the motives in both cases, no mattter what your stance on abortion is if the law were changed it needs to be respected. To change a law becuase some might break it is ridiculos. Murder is against the law, should we change it because people break it ? Speeding is breaking a law, so should we abolish speed limits because many break the limit ? So to say a reason not for banning abortion is because people would be having them in back alleys or dangerous conditions might be tru and would happen in some cases. Does not make it a reason to stop it or change the law. For now it's legal and we need to obey and respect that law. And anyone who tries to harm someone who performs abortions is guilty of a crime. Just as someone who had a "back alley" abortion if it's outlawed. So should we legalize abortion clinic bobmbings since people break the law anyway? of course not.
BTW on a side note. My friend recently had a vasectomy. When he went into the clinic he was told that his wife had to sign a consent form. He was outraged and refused to have it signed, his wife knew and approved of his decision. Finally they called his wife at work and she said o.k go ahead. I just found it odd that his wife could go in, have an abortion without his knowledge. And yet he had to get an o.k from his wife to have a vasectomy. I don't think this is due to any law but probably to prevent lawsuits. It just struck me as odd and a double standard. Has anyone else heard of this ?
Great post Luv2Fly
The vasectomy part is outrageous, yet true.
Scribe and I were driving down the road the other day and someone had a bumper sticker that read "Against abortion, have a vasectomy".
As if it's all mens fault. Only men are against abortion and it's only their responsibility.
Arrrrrrggggghhhh!
Yes.
I understand those who feel that the woman's choice comes down to being the final solutionand or factor.
Well said!
More logical conclusions for you. Back alley abortions end in death for both the mother tand the child. FACT. So now you have two deaths. Congratulations!
And then there's the fact that women with money will not have to suffer that indignity but can fly to Europe or enter discreet clinics where no questions are asked - just like it used to be, must I remind you?, leaving women without means to die at the hands of butchers.
Seems to me that we have just traded one kind of 'butchery' for another.
Next time guys, you ram a coathanger up your .... and then we will talk.
It may sound callous as H--, but I fathered five, and truly, although they have all turned out reasonably well, their Mother and I have often agreed that someone else could have had the last three. (Catholic notions and all that...1950s).
It is not deniable that one of the greatest perils facing the Race today is, and will continue to be, over-population; down the historical road, we could end by starving ourselves into extinction; ergo, abortion could base its case right there: SURVIVAL!!
my husband had a vasectomy, and he didn't need my permission, I think that's the most stupid thing Iv'e ever heard of! his body....his decision! these doctors sound like idiots to me!
Yes, but you missed the point, totally.
No I didn't, the idiot with the bumper sticker is missing the point. The idiot with the sticker is so arrogant as to believe that men have no say in the abortion issue.
My money says that it was NOT a "Man" driving that car
Obviously
Women don't like it that men are the ones that debate this issue and women's rights under current law ad nauseum, and in spite of the fact that they will never have to make the decision, unless maybe their wife is dangerously close to death and it is either her or the baby, and she's comatose...?
What women?
I don't believe for one minute that women are the only ones that are affected or should have a say in the abortion issue.
In our society, all points of view are valid, but responsibility for bearing a child, still remains within in the purview of the female, in the final analysis.
Responsibility......very strange word.
Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-"spän(t)-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 1786
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN
They can go to Amsterdam and buy drugs. Just because the rich can do things that the rest can't is irrelevant.
hmmmmm....womans choice, interesting concept.
What kind of a world is it that criminalizes one of the basic functions of a woman's body - bearing children- when it forces her to choose between having the child or not? Jethro's sort of world makes her and the child's subsequent life so horrible - she's a whore remember for having a child out of wedlock. If she goes to one of their clinics, she's treated like a brain dead child.
On another point, and this I had to consider deeply to get the emotions out of the way, what makes anyone think there's anything 'convenient' about the entire process? What, you think its just 'Oh, dear! I'm just stepping out to the corner store for a pound of abortion. Be back soonest!' Use of that expression makes my blood boil! One of the most harrowing decisions she'll ever have to make equated with just stepping out for a loaf of bread! GOD ROT THEIR SCROTUMS!!!
Sorry, almost lost it there for a moment.
You are quite right, Will. The only purpose really served by this thread is to allow Luv2Fly to wrestle pumas and for the rest of us to vent.
Actually, this thread was created to keep Jethro from inserting abortion into every other discussion he could access.
....what makes anyone think there's anything 'convenient' about the entire process?
It's a hell of a lot more 'convenient' than raising a child for 18-21 years.
One of the most harrowing decisions she'll ever have to make equated with just stepping out for a loaf of bread!
I haven't seen anyone equate abortion with stepping out for a loaf of bread. It's the pro-abortionists that minimalize abortion ("It's merely tissue").
GOD ROT THEIR SCROTUMS!!!
Was that called for? Does that help your argument in some way?
Speaking of Jethro. Where is that lovable right winger? Haven't seen him in a while.
(hiding a hammer and nails behind her back)
Quick -- the lead weights!
Do you have any chains and a short pier?
Kit,
I still think wrestling puma's would be easier. abortion is a very emotional debate. There are many varying opinions and outlooks. No one is neccisarily right and no one is neccisarily wrong. My only point was that whatever your outlook on it, right now it is legal to have an abortion. Would I like to see that stopped ? Sure I would. Would I support or applaud anyone who would bomb an abortion clinic or killed a doctor who performs them ? Not a chance, they are just as wrong and should be prosecuted. What I was saying is that if the law is changed back again the law has to be respected. Using the argument that "we;; if we outlaw it, women will have back alley abortions" Or some other thing about rich women flying to europe. Then those women would be breaking the law in doing so if the law is changed. We don't nor shouldn't decide law on who might break it. If it is a good law and the majority of the people think we should have it as law, so be it. Like it or not it has to be obeyed. Right now abortion is legal, something I may find horrid but nonetheless legal. And that's where the zealots lose many supporters including me.
Welcome back Luv2Fly. Hope you had a great weekend?
Thanks THX, twas Excellent. and you ?
Twas excellent here as well. Thank you for asking.
:-)
What kind of a world is it that criminalizes one of the basic functions of a woman's body - bearing children- when it forces her to choose between having the child or not? A world that values life. The choice comes with having sex. If a woman gets pregnant she should be responsible enough not to kill.
On another point, and this I had to consider deeply to get the emotions out of the way, what makes anyone think there's anything 'convenient' about the entire process? What, you think its just 'Oh, dear! I'm just stepping out to the corner store for a pound of abortion. Be back soonest!' Use of that expression makes my blood boil! One of the most harrowing decisions she'll ever have to make equated with just stepping out for a loaf of bread! Many women have an abortion out of CONVEINIENCE.
Got statistics on that, Jethro?
but that would depend upon whose stats were being used.
Of course, we all respect the law, Luv2Fly. Although the fact that I as a trained GI type person in a war zone was not only permitted but encouraged to slaughter enemies but oh, dear, me, my not to have an abortion because THAT would be murder! - well it does kind of give one to think that Americans are schizo.
As far as I am aware the 6th Commandment is NOT a conditional statement.
and if damning her soul to hell for all eternity by hacing an abortion is NOT accepting 'responsibility' I don't know what is.
Kit,
How do you equate killing your enemy in combat where it's you or them vs. killing a baby in the womb ? Killing an enemy in battle is not considered murder. There is a huge difference and as a former member of our armed forces I don't see how you can equate the two or make the connection between murder or killing a baby in an abortion and killing your enemy in combat. Perhaps you could elaborate, since my coffee pot went on the blink this morning and I've only had one cup of mud.
I would tend to agree with you on that. I don't want to get into a biblical discussion since someones religion or non religious beliefs is more personal than most things. However the bible also talks about killing thy enemies. There are many things that could be considered contradictory in the bible. "Turn the other cheek." and then it says "An eye for an eye" There are many passages etc. that can be used for either side to argue wether killing in a war is "permissible" etc or not under god's law. Again it is very open to the persons interpretation.
BTW From what I remember seeing in your posts to Bill Fold you were in the A.F correct ? I was always jealous of the people in the A.F, they had top notch facilities and seeing as how I've always loved aircraft they had some of the neatest stuff in the air. I spent some time at Peterson A.F.B in CO. near the academy. Wow, what a base. Their enlisted mess looked nicer than our Marine Officer mess.
Is it worth it to take the life of even one person just for the convenience of your freedom?
Are you talking about our freedom as a nation ? Or the freedom of a person who can't or doesn't wish to bring a child into the world ?
Does it matter?
since the Bible is the ultimate basis for jethro and his position on this topic that I'd bring up that little inconsistency.
The essential difference in the above post was that as an 'instrument of the state' I could blast away but NOT as an individual person with presumably some say over how her body was being used. Another inconsistency.
Yes the Marines aren't known for their ritzy facilities. Of course, in the AF you have to know how to fold a napkin and have to be on time for your tee off - so there are trade offs in every service.
Allison Wonderland,
Well let's see. It's your freedom that allows you and I to be having this discussion. It's freedom that allows us to also critcize our government or ELECTED officials. It is your freedom that allows you to be whatever you want to be. It is your freedom that allows your children to have it better than you. It is your freedom that let's you choose to worship or not as YOU see fit.
It is freedom that many countries strive and fight wars over and have for thousands of years. It's freedom that brings thousands to our shores and risk their lives in some cases to do so.
The list of why freedom and the ones we enjoy are great and numerous. There have been many who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to do so in the past for them and YOU. They found it important enough to lay everything on the line and there were people who stood in the way of that. You would not be doing what you are today if those had decided it was not important and YES to take the lives of those who wished to take our freedom. Was it worth taking the life of a Brtitish soliders life in the revolutionary war ? Was it worth taking the life of a confederate soilder ? Was it worth taking the life of a German or Japanese soilder ? YES. If it wasn't to you than apparently you prefer to live under tyranny, oppression or murderous regimes.
Maybe not to someone who calls freedom a mere convienience.
Ask the women and children who lived under the Taliban that question.
So if it's ok to kill for the sake of the convenience freedom provides you, why do you have a problem with abortion? You are saying that the quality of your life is more important than the right to life of the people you must kill to ensure that freedom. So why would you want to deny women the freedom to determine the quality of their lives?
Was it worth taking the life of a Brtitish soliders life in the revolutionary war ? Was it worth taking the life of a confederate soilder ? Was it worth taking the life of a German or Japanese soilder ? YES.
But you're butchering HUMANS just to try and make your life better. The Americans were the ones who decided to live in the colonies instead of Britain. Didn't they have a responsibility to be loyal to their government instead of killing British citizens just so they could pay less in taxes?
Allison Wonderland,
Because I have never been attacked or shot at by a fetus.
A baby is an innocent being who is at the mercy of the mother.
Yes I am, obviously you've never been in that situation. If somoene's shooting at you. I promise you won't take time to consider if they have more of a right to life than you or their political affiliation.
Good thing for the slaves it wasn't up to you and that some found their quality of life a bit more important than the Southerners right to life. (I forgot, freedom is just a convienience )
Was the quality of life more important to the Jews than the lives of a German soilder? Geez.
Why would you deny the freedom of an innocent child to be born ?
Here's a little news flash for ya. If people had brushed off freedom as a petty little thing and a as mere convienince as you call it. How many countries under tyranical rule let the people dedcide what laws they want? Without that freedom that others have died and YES, killed for, we wouldn't be able to decide as a FREE society If not to have or not to have abortions and you wouldn't have to worry about it. I oppose abortion and think it's wrong. Right now it's legal and I have to respect that and work within the system and legally to change it if I choose. I would also defend the law and the right to have that abortion because it's current law. If an outside force tries to interupt those freedoms or take them away, then I would fight to protect it even though I might dislike a portion of it. It's called freedom and we have the freedom to allow abortions and the freedom to not allow them. It's up to us to decide. Without freedom you wouldn't be able to decide, someone would do that for you, how convienient for you.
What I was saying is that if the law is changed back again the law has to be respected. Using the argument that "well if we outlaw it, women will have back alley abortions" Or some other thing about rich women flying to europe. Then those women would be breaking the law in doing so if the law is changed. We don't nor shouldn't decide law on who might break it.
I disagree. Do you never exceed 55mph on the highway (or 70 in the outer areas)? That's not to mention the dozens of silly laws on the books still in many places. I'd say they are bad laws because not only does no one obey them, no one really wants to obey them. And what about when there were laws dictating things like where blacks could and could not go. It's possible a majority of people supported those laws, but that didn't mean they were right.
The value of a law is whether it helps to make society a better and happier place to be. How would outlawing abortion make anyone happier? The people who seek one anyway will be much worse off. Those who wanted one but are forced to have the baby anyway aren't going to be any happier. Is society in general going to be happier because we now have a few more children that were born to parents who didn't want them? Are the children happier simply because they exist? They couldn't have been unhappy if they were never born. No one sits around lamenting the fact they don't exist. Do you possibly believe there are souls of aborted babies sitting up in heaven all pissed off because they were never born?
Granted any law is likely to impose hardship on some segment of society. Laws against murder make the lives of murderes miserable. Laws against stealing hamper the lives of thieves. The question is, is that hardship outweighed by a greater benefit to the society as a whole? In the case of murder and theft, I believe yes it does. In the case of abortion, I don't see it.
Allison Wonderland,
Was it worth taking the life of a Brtitish soliders life in the revolutionary war ? Was it worth taking the life of a confederate soilder ? Was it worth taking the life of a German or Japanese soilder ? YES.
Take a history lesson or two, it wasn't just about taxes, ever heard of the church of England ? Freedom of religion mean anything to you ? No probably not, forget it.
O.K, got it sure o.k we were better off living in repression. And the Jews were better off under Nazi's too, just because they were trying to better their lives. Hell we should have let Japan come on in. Why not. I'm sure they would be open
How easy for you to say if you weren't a slave or a Jew or repressed.
Of course it's easy for you since you have all these freedoms afforded you by those who did so. Hmm, interesting. Then again I am debating with someone who sees freedom as a convienience instead of a basic human right. You definately are in wonderland.
Here's a little news flash for ya. If people had brushed off freedom as a petty little thing and a as mere convienince as you call it.
Yet many of you would brush off a woman's freedom to choose what happens with her body as a mere convenience. See what I'm getting at now?
I'm not really trying to say that freedom is unimportant. I'm just taking the argument to its illogical end. You say quality of life and freedom are worth killing for. Fine. Now I'm saying that same argument applies to abortion. Fighting for your freedom isn't just about self-defense. In the Revolutionary War, the Americans were hardly fighting just a defensive war. In the Civil War it was the Union that went on the offensive. And in more recent wars Americans have gone on the offensive in the name of protecting freedom. I don't really believe that freedom isn't worth killing for. Of course it is. But by that same principle, abortion should be legal.
Because I have never been attacked or shot at by a fetus.
No one is asking you to kill one. But if a woman feels her quality of life is under attack by the fetus, shouldn't she be able to defend herself?
A baby is an innocent being who is at the mercy of the mother.
Everyone is born into sin. No one is truly innocent. I suppose you think it's wrong to eat the "cute" animals too. But that point aside, what does someone have to actually do to deserve death? Don't innocent civilians get killed in war sometimes, and yet it's justified as part of the fight to preserve freedom and our way of life? At the end of World War II don't you think there were some Germans soldiers who were simply trying to defend their land from being invaded by Americans? Were they deserving of death just because they were opposing us? Either it's ok to kill to protect your way of life or it isn't. You can't get away with saying some people deserve it and some don't.
How easy for you to say if you weren't a slave or a Jew or repressed.
And how easy for you to say when you're not a woman.
Yet many of you would brush off a woman's freedom to choose what happens with her body as a mere convenience.
Women have all the freedom in the world regarding their bodies. Except in very few circumstances it was her freedom that got her pregnant in the first place. If it wasn't for her freedom to do with her body as she wished, she would never have become pregnant.
allison Wonderland,
It's up to the individual to decide if they wish to break the law and also to suffer the consequences should they choose to do so. It's up to society to make those laws and those within society to work to change them if they feel it's bad law. Just as they did to outlaw jim crow laws in the south. So if we use your logic and a law can be broken because we feel it's "silly" or stupid, I can go bomb an abortion clinic because I feel the law is bad ? Of course not, I could do it but their would be consequences. If you don't like the law work to change it or elect the people who reflect that view.
Exactly see above, A majority eventually thought jim crow laws were wrong and worked to change them. Same as abortion, it's how law and the making of law works. Right now it's legal and I have to respect it. If I choose not to respect ot then I face the consequences.
Too bad we can't ask them, are you glad to be alive ?
I'm sure you don't Many do, more than you know but I'm glad you speak for everyone.
Yes you are, and doing quite well.
Next on the history channel the real story of Northern agression. Huh ? Pick up a history book and take a peek at who did the offense, hint, the south was within 15 miles of Washinton D.C
That's fine that you do, that was my whole point that without that freedom we as a society wouldn't be able to decide. It would be a king, an emporer or furher.
Yes. If they are trying to kill you I guarantee you won't give a hoot what their motives are. All you know is that they are trying to kill you and if you don't kill them they will succeed. It's called a survival instinct and everyone has one.
A baby is an innocent being who is at the mercy of the mother.
O.K what have they done that would be a sin ? How would a baby have any sin at all ? what would their sin be ?
And you're not a baby.
since the Bible is the ultimate basis for jethro and his position on this topic that I'd bring up that little inconsistency. If you believe that you are wrong. That you are wrong is par for you.
Quality of life? That is the standard for butchering an innocent unborn child? Liberals are outrageous.
Weren't those cities full of factories supporting the war effort, making them legitimate targets?
This could get into a long discussion on Just War Theory and this really isn't the thread for that.
"Weren't those cities full of factories supporting the war effort, making them legitimate targets?"
I think "legitimate target" gets defined loosely at times.
I would agree. I have no doubts that Osama saw the people in the WTC as legitimate targets.
Which brings us back to killing innocent people for the sake of preserving one's freedom and quality of life. Like I said, you can't pretend that you're able to draw a line. Fighting for your freedom goes far beyond simply shooting back at people who are shooting at you.
So if we use your logic and a law can be broken because we feel it's "silly" or stupid, I can go bomb an abortion clinic because I feel the law is bad?
No, my point was that just because something is a law, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, or even that it’s supported by the society. Laws that no one obeys are one such example. And there are some things, that if they passed a law against it, I would still do. In fact there are some things that are technically illegal that I don’t agree with and do anyway (and I don’t mean drugs).
Too bad we can't ask them, are you glad to be alive?
Actually I think it’s just as well that we can’t ask them. And yes, I enjoy being alive, but if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t have the capacity to be upset about it.
No one sits around lamenting the fact they don't exist. I'm sure you don't Many do, more than you know but I'm glad you speak for everyone.
Of course I don’t sit around lamenting the fact I don’t exist because in fact I do exist. As for those who are upset about the fact they don’t exist, can you provide even one example?
Pick up a history book and take a peek at who did the offense, hint, the south was within 15 miles of Washinton D.C.
Washington D.C. was very close to the South, and yes, they did make a few forays into northern territory, most notably at Gettysburg, but the Southerners were hardly the aggressors. They had no desire to conquer the northern states. They simply wanted to defeat the army that was trying to force them to stay in the Union. It was the North that had to go in and essentially conquer the South to get them to stay. 90% of the war was fought on Southern territory. Do you recall Sherman’s March and the burning of everything along the way? Had the U.S. simply let the South secede, there would have been no need for war. Yet we justified the deaths of everyone in that war by saying it preserved the strength of our society. So again, we see it’s ok to kill for the sake of preserving your way of life.
At the end of World War II don't you think there were some Germans soldiers who were simply trying to defend their land from being invaded by Americans? Were they deserving of death just because they were opposing us?
Yes. If they are trying to kill you I guarantee you won't give a hoot what their motives are. All you know is that they are trying to kill you and if you don't kill them they will succeed. It's called a survival instinct and everyone has one.
But who said we had to go into Germany in the first place? If you weren’t on their land, they might not have been shooting at you. Besides, I’m not talking about the experience of the individual soldier, I’m talking about the decision to go into Germany in the first place. Would you disagree that we shouldn’t have gone in and killed all those Germans because their right to life superceded America’s agenda to preserve our way of life? If not, and the right to be free and choose your own destiny supercedes the right to life of someone who threatens that, then you shouldn’t be against abortion.
O.K what have they done that would be a sin? How would a baby have any sin at all ? what would their sin be ?
It’s in the Bible. Everyone is born into sin and no one is truly innocent in God’s eyes without forgiveness.