"For the record the only thing I wrote is that when someone does kill an abortion provider he should be allowed to use the theory of defense of others in his trial. The jury can accept it or not. I never said the person should not be charged and tried. GOT IT?"
Well, as long as we're advocating taking the law into our own hands, I wouldn't mind going to jail for shooting down a few pedophiles. And then there are rapists. And men who beat up their wife and kids. Wheee, and while I'm at it, jaywalkers really piss me off, too. And how about those drunk drivers? Don't these people know they are endangering others???
Well, as long as we're advocating taking the law into our own hands,I wouldn't mind going to jail for shooting down a few pedophiles. And then there are rapists. And men who beat up their wife and kids. Wheee, and while I'm at it, jaywalkers really piss me off, too. And how about those drunk drivers? Don't these people know they are endangering others???
As usual the absurd are being absurd. Tell it to a jury on each case and see where you get. That was the point all along.
No, the point is that you believe that assasinating abortion doctors is defensible. An odd position for a right to lifer to take, especially one who holds all life to be involiate regardless of the consequences to anyone else--as long as the life in question is inside a woman's womb.
oh i understand "the jury can accept it or not" just fine. i also understand that you're trying to slither around taking a stance on whether the assassination of abortion providers is murder. and given everything you've stated in your share of the past 2148 posts, i get the distinct impression that the answer to that question in your eyes is no.
And the inconsistent are being inconsistent. Site the inconsistency. You can't because there was none.
No, the point is that you believe that assasinating abortion doctors is defensible. That would be up to the jury to determine if it was justifiable.An odd position for a right to lifer to take, especially one who holds all life to be involiate regardless of the consequences to anyone else--as long as the life in question is inside a woman's womb. The issue is and you apparently are so morally corrupt that you can't see it is the culpability and the guilt of the person being put to death. But of course it is not possilbe to discuss morals with anyone that doesn't have any. So I will not persist down that road.
I also understand that you're trying to slither around taking a stance on whether the assassination of abortion providers is murder. Like all those that support abortion on demand slither out of the moral dilemna by saying it isn't for them to decide?
because that would be interfering with a private matter.
slither away my dear. Please explain this supposed inconsistency? Abortion is the intentional ending of a human life that hasa began. You can argue with it all you want but everyone was conceieved and you wouldn't be walking around today if someone had aborted you. The difference is that if someone kills an abortion provider they may well be stopping some abortions and protecting those that would have been aborted. If you can see the difference on a theorectical level then you are hopeless.
and you cangrasp it? if taking a human life is wrong, its wrong. period. not just when it suits you. why not just come out and say it jethro? the world would be a lot better place if someone went off and killed all of us baby killers? you may as well be saying it, but it looks like you're too scard to actually say the words.
if taking a human life is wrong, its wrong. period. No not at all. If you are attacked by someone and your life is placed in danger you are justified in killing them. Same can be true if you are defending the life of another. There are some differences on this in different jurisdictions.
why not just come out and say it jethro? the world would be a lot better place if someone went off and killed all of us baby killers? It might stop a lot of killing of babies.you may as well be saying it, but it looks like you're too scard to actually say the words. As I stated before the persons that do kill abortionists can be prosecuted. If the jury says they are justified you can live with just like you can live with OJ's acquital. If they are convicted then they are convicted that is the price they have to pay. It is something each person must decide for themselves. It is after all a choice to commit the act or not.
You are not funny, L. I say make abortion illegal and then women will have a choice to follow the law or break it. Remember it is a child not a choice.
If someone took out a gun and started shooting people in a crowd, I doubt anyone would complain too much about someone shooting and killing the shooter. While killing is generally wrong, one can try to justify the action by saying the killing of that one person actually saved the lives of who knows how many others the shooter may have killed had they not been stopped. What jethro is saying is along those same lines, only it rests on the assumption that a fetus is equivalent to a human being. Granting that assumption, someone that kills an abortion doctor could try and claim that they were trying to save lives, namely the lives of the babies the doctor would have otherwise aborted. There's actually nothing wrong with the logic of that argument if you grant the original assumption.
However, in reality, there are other things to consider that do counter the argument. While going around and shooting people is illegal, performing an abortion is not. A murderer is generally considered to forfeit his right to life. Our society as a whole does not impose such penalties on abortion doctors and no one person has the right to take that role upon themselves. Secondly, our society prohibits vigilante justice which is essentially what bombing an abortion clinic or killing a doctor would amount to, even if it was somehow morally justified. So the argument that you were trying to save lives wouldn't entirely matter as that's simply not how things are done.
"I say make abortion illegal and then women will have a choice to follow the law or break it."
Now that's the sort of statement I'm talking about. This doesn't sound like someone who wants to stop abortions. This sounds like someone who just wants to punish women. If you're going to say women still have a choice to abort or not, why not at least make the one option safer for them and take away the threat of punishing them?
If we really want to stop abortions, we need to stop unwanted pregnancies, not just make it illegal.
"Like me, he sees abortion as an absolute wrong and not needed if people were responsible."
But that's a big If, and the heart of the debate is what is the punishment for someone who isn't responsible? And what constitutes not being responsible? If you use birth control, but it's one of those 1 in 100 cases where it doesn't work and you get pregnant anyway, then you're essentially saying that as punishment for choosing to have sex, a woman must either be forced to go through a pregnancy against her will, or she will be thrown in prison. Can we at least admit there's something not right about that? Isn't the punishment rather severe for the crime?
Now that's the sort of statement I'm talking about. This doesn't sound like someone who wants to stop abortions. Well you would be wrong. I believe that if abortions were illegal then there would be less of them. I don no believe that abortion will be ended altogether.This sounds like someone who just wants to punish women. That is an assumption without any foundation. In other words an unsubstantiated charge to try to make my position look bad. Most likely such statements are made because the person making them can't find anything wrong in the underlying point which in this case is abortions are wrong and they should be reduced.If you're going to say women still have a choice to abort or not, why not at least make the one option safer for them and take away the threat of punishing them? No the choice isn't to abort the choice is to break the law or obey it. I do not believe that abortion should be a legal choice. Abortion will be an option no matter what the law is. I just believe if it were illegal there would be less of them.
If we really want to stop abortions, we need to stop unwanted pregnancies, not just make it illegal. I believe if abortions were illegal there would also be less unwanted pregnancies.
If you use birth control, but it's one of those 1 in 100 cases where it doesn't work and you get pregnant anyway, then you're essentially saying that as punishment for choosing to have sex, a woman must either be forced to go through a pregnancy against her will, or she will be thrown in prison. Can we at least admit there's something not right about that? Isn't the punishment rather severe for the crime?
No. It is not punishment to say if you get pregnant because you have sex you must either go through with the pregnancy or take a risk and get an illegal abortion. Punishment is aborting the unborn child for no reason other than that the mother simply doesn't want to be bothered with the child although she knew there was a chance that she would become pregnant when she had sex .
In nations where the level of prosperity , education is abysmally low and availability of birth control methods is almost non-existent, responsibility does fat lot of good.
If a coterie of people believe that abortion is absolutely wrong, refuse to practice it. Denigrate it and preach against it. Try to influence others to your point of view.
But do not dictatorially deny the use of the procedure to folks who think they need it. Do not impose your morality on others to the extent that it disrupts their lifestyle and causes cataclysmic misery.
As I have pointed out before - it is a sacrosanct violation of my religious principles to eat beef. Should I clamor for a ban on cow-slaughter all over the globe??
As I have pointed out before - it is a sacrosanct violation of my religious principles to eat beef. Should I clamor for a ban on cow-slaughter all over the globe??
Cows are the equivalent of humans? Totally absurd!!!!
But do not dictatorially deny the use of the procedure to folks who think they need it. Do not impose your morality on others to the extent that it disrupts their lifestyle and causes cataclysmic misery.
Imposing a morality on someone else is EXACTLY what is done with every abortion.
In nations where the level of prosperity , education is abysmally low and availability of birth control methods is almost non-existent, responsibility does fat lot of good.
Isn't that a cop out?
If a coterie of people believe that abortion is absolutely wrong, refuse to practice it. Denigrate it and preach against it. Try to influence others to your point of view.
I hardly bother with the subject any more. I'm not going to convince anyone to change their point of view. I generally say my piece and move on. I don't think there's much middle ground on this subject.
But do not dictatorially deny the use of the procedure to folks who think they need it.
We "dictatorially" deny people things every day.
Do not impose your morality on others to the extent that it disrupts their lifestyle and causes cataclysmic misery.
LOL! That's silly. Most of our laws are based on morality and many of the disrupt our lifestyles.
As I have pointed out before - it is a sacrosanct violation of my religious principles to eat beef. Should I clamor for a ban on cow-slaughter all over the globe??
Sure, if you feel that strongly about it.
btw, If I thought not eating beef would save millions of innocent babies each year, I'd quit eating beef this minute.
in what way? picture in your mind an emaciated woman in a slum in Mogadishu who is knocked up for the 13th time - and 9 thru 12 children are tugging at her dry breast! The father is a soldier who was celebrating the downing of an American black hawk apache helicopter.
Where does your moral responsibility fit in?
Most of our laws are based on morality
Not true – they are based on rule of law arrived at by societal consensus. Fundamentals are based on jurisprudence. If jethro’s morality or David Duke’s morality or Pat Robertson’s morality prevailed, I would be cat food.
If I thought not eating beef would save millions of innocent babies each year, I'd quit eating beef this minute.
if you did stop eating beef and donated the money saved to starving children in Zimbabwe, you would save a few lives.
Today – October 2nd is Gandhi’s birthday. Make a dedication.
The limits of the law in enforcing moral standards and the tensions between liberty and controlling people through those laws, are up for debate in ANY free society.
And how is that different from saying that "societal consensus" is the society's morality expressed in terms of the law?
and they will quickly find out that most legal scholars agree that they have little to do directly, with one another.
But I'd have to agree with Jethro that there's a strong indirect relationship. The law isn't meant to regulate morality per se, but it is meant to reflect the will of the majority. But the will of the majority is made up of a collection of individual wills, and those in turn are generally influenced by their individual moralities.
But then again Bill may have a point in that sometimes, such as in the case of abortion, even if a majority does find it wrong, the government, for the sake of protecting the "greater good" of individual freedom and rights may allow it.
But then again Bill may have a point in that sometimes, such as in the case of abortion, even if a majority does find it wrong, the government, for the sake of protecting the "greater good" of individual freedom and rights may allow it.
There is no "greater good" in aborting a child. There is no freedom in it for the child. It is almost always a selfish act by the person that wants the abortion and the person(s) that perform them. Anyone that believes that there is a "greater good" in abortion is just simply immoral.
Innocent people get killed in wars. Is America not the only country in the world to have detonated a nuclear bomb on a civilian population? We could have not fought the war and given in to the Japanese and life would have gone on, but it wasn't the life we wanted to lead. So ultimately we dropped the bomb to win the war, thus killing innocent people in order to preserve our lifestyle.
Abortion is the same thing on a smaller scale. Does a woman not have the right to defend the quality of her life if someone is threatening it?
Quality of life my ass. The difference is that in war the objective is generally NOT to kill innocents. It does happen and it condemned when it does happen. Quite a few of those same people that condemn civilian deaths in war jubilantly support abortion.
The question is not whether you personally would encourage your wife or your daughter to have an abortion if they were to incur an unwanted pregnancy, but whether every American woman has a right to choose for herself in consultation with her physician and her family. Freedom of choice enables every woman to act in accordance with her conscience and her beliefs. If that were taken away, many women would be forced to carry to term pregnancies they do not want. Why isn't freedom of choice the right public policy for a democracy?
Actually I think they were both my comments and they were both directed at you. My first comment was: "Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. You seldom do. It could be intentional misunderstanding but I don't believe that." That statement goes to your ability to understand what I write. My second comment was: "It is impossible to comprehend most of what you write because it is thoughtless drivel." That statement goes to what you write.
UNDERSTAND?
I suppose you could have meant something else. Cloudy minds tend not to present coherent thoughts.
No one can ever stop unwanted pregnancies. They just happen sometimes. Like other unwanted things that come into your life. You just have to adapt and move on in the most positive way, just like any other unwanted occurence that enters your life.
I find the most positive ways to handle the unexpected unwanted pregnancy to be:
1) Consider changing your life and welcoming the baby lovingly into your world. ........or...
2) Give another lady the opportunity of a lifetime by lovingly letting her adopt the child you do not want in your life.
Give another lady the opportunity of a lifetime by lovingly letting her adopt the child you do not want in your life.
Is your context solely the USA - Canada perhaps. What about the hordes of unwanted babies in Mexico? And there are more continents than North America you know.
But your "No one can ever stop unwanted pregnancies" statement, is completely wrong.
Just ask Jethro.
As usual you live in a complete world of make believe or lies. You refuse to listen to anything I write because of your irrational hatred for me. I have ALWAYS said that there will be unwanted pregnacies. Start dealing with reality, fold, it makes life easier.
Rick, you simply don't understand that prolifers believe the unborn child is a human being. I believe that because it is logical. Conception is the starting point for everyone. Now if someone holds that belief how can they compromise? To do so means that the prolifer accepts that it is okay for a child to be killed. That is why there is no compromise.
"For the record the only thing I wrote is that when someone does kill an abortion provider he should be allowed to use the theory of defense of others in his trial. The jury can accept it or not. I never said the person should not be charged and tried. GOT IT?"
Makes sense to me anyway.
Well, as long as we're advocating taking the law into our own hands, I wouldn't mind going to jail for shooting down a few pedophiles. And then there are rapists. And men who beat up their wife and kids. Wheee, and while I'm at it, jaywalkers really piss me off, too. And how about those drunk drivers? Don't these people know they are endangering others???
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
'But your Honor, I was only defending others.'
What part of "the jury can accept it or not," don't you understand, ares
Well, as long as we're advocating taking the law into our own hands,I wouldn't mind going to jail for shooting down a few pedophiles. And then there are rapists. And men who beat up their wife and kids. Wheee, and while I'm at it, jaywalkers really piss me off, too. And how about those drunk drivers? Don't these people know they are endangering others???
As usual the absurd are being absurd. Tell it to a jury on each case and see where you get. That was the point all along.
And the inconsistent are being inconsistent.
No, the point is that you believe that assasinating abortion doctors is defensible. An odd position for a right to lifer to take, especially one who holds all life to be involiate regardless of the consequences to anyone else--as long as the life in question is inside a woman's womb.
oh i understand "the jury can accept it or not" just fine. i also understand that you're trying to slither around taking a stance on whether the assassination of abortion providers is murder. and given everything you've stated in your share of the past 2148 posts, i get the distinct impression that the answer to that question in your eyes is no.
And the inconsistent are being inconsistent. Site the inconsistency. You can't because there was none.
No, the point is that you believe that assasinating abortion doctors is defensible. That would be up to the jury to determine if it was justifiable.An odd position for a right to lifer to take, especially one who holds all life to be involiate regardless of the consequences to anyone else--as long as the life in question is inside a woman's womb. The issue is and you apparently are so morally corrupt that you can't see it is the culpability and the guilt of the person being put to death. But of course it is not possilbe to discuss morals with anyone that doesn't have any. So I will not persist down that road.
I also understand that you're trying to slither around taking a stance on whether the assassination of abortion providers is murder. Like all those that support abortion on demand slither out of the moral dilemna by saying it isn't for them to decide?
no. because that would be interfering with a private matter. and on behalf of the lionness, there's your inconsistency right there.
because that would be interfering with a private matter.
slither away my dear. Please explain this supposed inconsistency? Abortion is the intentional ending of a human life that hasa began. You can argue with it all you want but everyone was conceieved and you wouldn't be walking around today if someone had aborted you. The difference is that if someone kills an abortion provider they may well be stopping some abortions and protecting those that would have been aborted. If you can see the difference on a theorectical level then you are hopeless.
Apparently you proabortionists can't grasp the concept of right and wrong based on a persons actions.
and you cangrasp it? if taking a human life is wrong, its wrong. period. not just when it suits you. why not just come out and say it jethro? the world would be a lot better place if someone went off and killed all of us baby killers? you may as well be saying it, but it looks like you're too scard to actually say the words.
if taking a human life is wrong, its wrong. period. No not at all. If you are attacked by someone and your life is placed in danger you are justified in killing them. Same can be true if you are defending the life of another. There are some differences on this in different jurisdictions.
why not just come out and say it jethro? the world would be a lot better place if someone went off and killed all of us baby killers? It might stop a lot of killing of babies.you may as well be saying it, but it looks like you're too scard to actually say the words. As I stated before the persons that do kill abortionists can be prosecuted. If the jury says they are justified you can live with just like you can live with OJ's acquital. If they are convicted then they are convicted that is the price they have to pay. It is something each person must decide for themselves. It is after all a choice to commit the act or not.
Exactly what we've been saying all along. Welcome to the pro-choice movement, jetrho. :)
You are not funny, L. I say make abortion illegal and then women will have a choice to follow the law or break it. Remember it is a child not a choice.
If someone took out a gun and started shooting people in a crowd, I doubt anyone would complain too much about someone shooting and killing the shooter. While killing is generally wrong, one can try to justify the action by saying the killing of that one person actually saved the lives of who knows how many others the shooter may have killed had they not been stopped. What jethro is saying is along those same lines, only it rests on the assumption that a fetus is equivalent to a human being. Granting that assumption, someone that kills an abortion doctor could try and claim that they were trying to save lives, namely the lives of the babies the doctor would have otherwise aborted. There's actually nothing wrong with the logic of that argument if you grant the original assumption.
However, in reality, there are other things to consider that do counter the argument. While going around and shooting people is illegal, performing an abortion is not. A murderer is generally considered to forfeit his right to life. Our society as a whole does not impose such penalties on abortion doctors and no one person has the right to take that role upon themselves. Secondly, our society prohibits vigilante justice which is essentially what bombing an abortion clinic or killing a doctor would amount to, even if it was somehow morally justified. So the argument that you were trying to save lives wouldn't entirely matter as that's simply not how things are done.
"I say make abortion illegal and then women will have a choice to follow the law or break it."
Now that's the sort of statement I'm talking about. This doesn't sound like someone who wants to stop abortions. This sounds like someone who just wants to punish women. If you're going to say women still have a choice to abort or not, why not at least make the one option safer for them and take away the threat of punishing them?
If we really want to stop abortions, we need to stop unwanted pregnancies, not just make it illegal.
I hate to admit it but I see Jethro's side of this. Like me, he sees abortion as an absolute wrong and not needed if people were responsible.
He's just not respectful of others opinions on the matter.
:-)
"Like me, he sees abortion as an absolute wrong and not needed if people were responsible."
But that's a big If, and the heart of the debate is what is the punishment for someone who isn't responsible? And what constitutes not being responsible? If you use birth control, but it's one of those 1 in 100 cases where it doesn't work and you get pregnant anyway, then you're essentially saying that as punishment for choosing to have sex, a woman must either be forced to go through a pregnancy against her will, or she will be thrown in prison. Can we at least admit there's something not right about that? Isn't the punishment rather severe for the crime?
Now that's the sort of statement I'm talking about. This doesn't sound like someone who wants to stop abortions. Well you would be wrong. I believe that if abortions were illegal then there would be less of them. I don no believe that abortion will be ended altogether.This sounds like someone who just wants to punish women. That is an assumption without any foundation. In other words an unsubstantiated charge to try to make my position look bad. Most likely such statements are made because the person making them can't find anything wrong in the underlying point which in this case is abortions are wrong and they should be reduced.If you're going to say women still have a choice to abort or not, why not at least make the one option safer for them and take away the threat of punishing them? No the choice isn't to abort the choice is to break the law or obey it. I do not believe that abortion should be a legal choice. Abortion will be an option no matter what the law is. I just believe if it were illegal there would be less of them.
If we really want to stop abortions, we need to stop unwanted pregnancies, not just make it illegal. I believe if abortions were illegal there would also be less unwanted pregnancies.
He's just not respectful of others opinions on the matter.
It is difficult to be respectful of others that one finds to be immoral.
If you use birth control, but it's one of those 1 in 100 cases where it doesn't work and you get pregnant anyway, then you're essentially saying that as punishment for choosing to have sex, a woman must either be forced to go through a pregnancy against her will, or she will be thrown in prison. Can we at least admit there's something not right about that? Isn't the punishment rather severe for the crime?
No. It is not punishment to say if you get pregnant because you have sex you must either go through with the pregnancy or take a risk and get an illegal abortion. Punishment is aborting the unborn child for no reason other than that the mother simply doesn't want to be bothered with the child although she knew there was a chance that she would become pregnant when she had sex .
Now he's done it again with a new federal regulation that identifies fetuses as "unborn children," all in the name of extending prenatal health benefits to the preborn poor. By identifying fetuses as "unborn children," Bush effectively has managed to establish personhood for fetuses while appearing to care deeply for the huddled masses.
THX 1138 10/2/02 5:42am
not needed if people were responsible
In nations where the level of prosperity , education is abysmally low and availability of birth control methods is almost non-existent, responsibility does fat lot of good.
If a coterie of people believe that abortion is absolutely wrong, refuse to practice it. Denigrate it and preach against it. Try to influence others to your point of view.
But do not dictatorially deny the use of the procedure to folks who think they need it. Do not impose your morality on others to the extent that it disrupts their lifestyle and causes cataclysmic misery.
As I have pointed out before - it is a sacrosanct violation of my religious principles to eat beef. Should I clamor for a ban on cow-slaughter all over the globe??
As I have pointed out before - it is a sacrosanct violation of my religious principles to eat beef. Should I clamor for a ban on cow-slaughter all over the globe??
Cows are the equivalent of humans? Totally absurd!!!!
But do not dictatorially deny the use of the procedure to folks who think they need it. Do not impose your morality on others to the extent that it disrupts their lifestyle and causes cataclysmic misery.
Imposing a morality on someone else is EXACTLY what is done with every abortion.
In nations where the level of prosperity , education is abysmally low and availability of birth control methods is almost non-existent, responsibility does fat lot of good.
Isn't that a cop out?
If a coterie of people believe that abortion is absolutely wrong, refuse to practice it. Denigrate it and preach against it. Try to influence others to your point of view.
I hardly bother with the subject any more. I'm not going to convince anyone to change their point of view. I generally say my piece and move on. I don't think there's much middle ground on this subject.
But do not dictatorially deny the use of the procedure to folks who think they need it.
We "dictatorially" deny people things every day.
Do not impose your morality on others to the extent that it disrupts their lifestyle and causes cataclysmic misery.
LOL! That's silly. Most of our laws are based on morality and many of the disrupt our lifestyles.
As I have pointed out before - it is a sacrosanct violation of my religious principles to eat beef. Should I clamor for a ban on cow-slaughter all over the globe??
Sure, if you feel that strongly about it.
btw, If I thought not eating beef would save millions of innocent babies each year, I'd quit eating beef this minute.
THX 1138 10/2/02 7:21pm
Isn't that a cop out?
in what way? picture in your mind an emaciated woman in a slum in Mogadishu who is knocked up for the 13th time - and 9 thru 12 children are tugging at her dry breast! The father is a soldier who was celebrating the downing of an American black hawk apache helicopter.
Where does your moral responsibility fit in?
Most of our laws are based on morality
Not true – they are based on rule of law arrived at by societal consensus. Fundamentals are based on jurisprudence. If jethro’s morality or David Duke’s morality or Pat Robertson’s morality prevailed, I would be cat food.
If I thought not eating beef would save millions of innocent babies each year, I'd quit eating beef this minute.
if you did stop eating beef and donated the money saved to starving children in Zimbabwe, you would save a few lives.
Today – October 2nd is Gandhi’s birthday. Make a dedication.
Not true – they are based on rule of law arrived at by societal consensus.
What the h*** do you think is the basis for "societal consensus"? It is the morality of that society expressed in terms of law.
if you did stop eating beef and donated the money saved to starving children in Zimbabwe, you would save a few lives.
If you stopped buying clothes you could do that, too. Or if you stopped paying the mortgage or the rent you could donate it, also.
"Morality" and "The Law", have very little to do with one another.
Only a simpleton could believe the above statement.
The limits of the law in enforcing moral standards and the tensions between liberty and controlling people through those laws, are up for debate in ANY free society.
And how is that different from saying that "societal consensus" is the society's morality expressed in terms of the law?
and they will quickly find out that most legal scholars agree that they have little to do directly, with one another.
But I'd have to agree with Jethro that there's a strong indirect relationship. The law isn't meant to regulate morality per se, but it is meant to reflect the will of the majority. But the will of the majority is made up of a collection of individual wills, and those in turn are generally influenced by their individual moralities.
But then again Bill may have a point in that sometimes, such as in the case of abortion, even if a majority does find it wrong, the government, for the sake of protecting the "greater good" of individual freedom and rights may allow it.
Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. You seldom do. It could be intentional misunderstanding but I don't believe that.
But then again Bill may have a point in that sometimes, such as in the case of abortion, even if a majority does find it wrong, the government, for the sake of protecting the "greater good" of individual freedom and rights may allow it.
There is no "greater good" in aborting a child. There is no freedom in it for the child. It is almost always a selfish act by the person that wants the abortion and the person(s) that perform them. Anyone that believes that there is a "greater good" in abortion is just simply immoral.
That gets back to what started the whole Civil War thread. Do we not sometimes kill others simply for the sake of preserving our lifestyle?
That gets back to what started the whole Civil War thread. Do we not sometimes kill others simply for the sake of preserving our lifestyle?
What do you mean? I don't think you can compare war with the taking of innocent helpless unborn childrens lives.
Innocent people get killed in wars. Is America not the only country in the world to have detonated a nuclear bomb on a civilian population? We could have not fought the war and given in to the Japanese and life would have gone on, but it wasn't the life we wanted to lead. So ultimately we dropped the bomb to win the war, thus killing innocent people in order to preserve our lifestyle.
Abortion is the same thing on a smaller scale. Does a woman not have the right to defend the quality of her life if someone is threatening it?
Quality of life my ass. The difference is that in war the objective is generally NOT to kill innocents. It does happen and it condemned when it does happen. Quite a few of those same people that condemn civilian deaths in war jubilantly support abortion.
(1) Do you believe in a woman's right to choose?
The question is not whether you personally would encourage your wife or your daughter to have an abortion if they were to incur an unwanted pregnancy, but whether every American woman has a right to choose for herself in consultation with her physician and her family. Freedom of choice enables every woman to act in accordance with her conscience and her beliefs. If that were taken away, many women would be forced to carry to term pregnancies they do not want. Why isn't freedom of choice the right public policy for a democracy?
--From Jim Fetzer's 20 Questions for Norm Coleman
It is impossible to comprehend most of what you write because it is thoughtless drivel.
Actually I think they were both my comments and they were both directed at you. My first comment was: "Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. You seldom do. It could be intentional misunderstanding but I don't believe that." That statement goes to your ability to understand what I write. My second comment was: "It is impossible to comprehend most of what you write because it is thoughtless drivel." That statement goes to what you write.
UNDERSTAND?
I suppose you could have meant something else. Cloudy minds tend not to present coherent thoughts.
Y-e-s, I m-u-s-t s-p-e-l-l i-t o-u-t f-o-r y-o-u.
Allison Wonderland 10/1/02 11:11pm
No one can ever stop unwanted pregnancies. They just happen sometimes. Like other unwanted things that come into your life. You just have to adapt and move on in the most positive way, just like any other unwanted occurence that enters your life.
I find the most positive ways to handle the unexpected unwanted pregnancy to be:
1) Consider changing your life and welcoming the baby lovingly into your world. ........or...
2) Give another lady the opportunity of a lifetime by lovingly letting her adopt the child you do not want in your life.
Paula I 10/7/02 2:09pm
Give another lady the opportunity of a lifetime by lovingly letting her adopt the child you do not want in your life.
Is your context solely the USA - Canada perhaps. What about the hordes of unwanted babies in Mexico? And there are more continents than North America you know.
Any humane solution for theose outside NA?
Forced sterilization?
But your "No one can ever stop unwanted pregnancies" statement, is completely wrong.
Just ask Jethro.
As usual you live in a complete world of make believe or lies. You refuse to listen to anything I write because of your irrational hatred for me. I have ALWAYS said that there will be unwanted pregnacies. Start dealing with reality, fold, it makes life easier.
The abortion debate is already the most bitter and divisive single issue in North American politics. The conflict is about to be ratcheted up a notch or two.
It doesn't have to be that bitter and divisive.
If the extremes on the two sides could both make an effort to reach across the divide.
Rick, you simply don't understand that prolifers believe the unborn child is a human being. I believe that because it is logical. Conception is the starting point for everyone. Now if someone holds that belief how can they compromise? To do so means that the prolifer accepts that it is okay for a child to be killed. That is why there is no compromise.