OK with me... Also, I am not surprised that two "weatherguessers" have similar views on the world... Being talented often times means accepting the taunts of those who do not possess any.
More like being caught up in a "mob mentality." I don't think either one of you can seperate yourself from liberal dogma.
I don't think that doctors that are practicing medicine should assist in suicides. However, they could make assisited suicide a specilaity or retired doctors could handle those cases.
Hmmm, quite the debate so far. I think I'll start on one end and work my way across.
Kit says :
Therefore, since she is the one who bears the consequences of her decision, and she alone, then it is her decision to make - regardless of what that decision may be.
I think this sentiment is a bit narrow-minded and does a disservice to the idea of keeping abortion legal. Obviously it's not *just* the woman that is affected by her decision, it is the child as well. The woman ought to have a right to decide whether or not she is to be pregnant, yet at the same time, there is the right of life granted to all people in our society. When a woman decides to have an abortion, these two rights seem to come into direct confrontation. To deny that and say it's only about the woman won't likely win any arguments as it's too easy to counter it by simply saying "What about the baby?"
Some people like Jethro take the opposite point of view and say the baby and it's rights are really all that matter. It's not even necessarily that the baby is in any way superior to the mother, but rather that the right to life is generally deemed to take precedence over the right to convenience. Therefore killing the child because it's not convenient for you would seem just as wrong as killing the kid after it's born because it wasn't convenient.
So does that mean women are simply condemned to have children whether they want to or not? Well if you believe an unborn child is a legitimate human being with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto, there probably can't be much of any other conclusion.
Yet it's not clear that a fetus is, or should be considered the equivalent of a human. As I posted in another thread, when someone dies, the body remains. Yet we don't consider every dead body to be an actual person with the same rights as everyone else (dead people aren't allowed to own property for example). Most people don't even consider it to be a person, but rather simply the earthly remains of what used to be a person. So let's take that to the other extreme. Isn't it possible that a fetus also is simply a body, a physical entity that does not yet have a soul? Physically, a fetus in the first trimester has no nervous system, no real brain to speak of. Spiritually, it strikes me as illogical that God would give a soul to a body that never even sees the light of day. You can believe what you want, but you can't really prove that a fetus is a genuine person. And as long as that doubt exists, the whole abortion debate falls into a huge gray area. Now it is no longer a contest between the rights of the mother against the rights of the child, but rather the rights of a person versus the rights of something that may be nothing more than a biological entity.
I don't think that makes abortion right per se. I think morally, killing even the potential for life is probably something God would frown on. And as was pointed out, it has it's own earthly drawbacks as well in terms of the guilt one can feel about it later on. It's definitely not a decision to be made lightly. But I wouldn't consider it murder, and even if you do believe it is a genuine person, that's your belief and you don't have the right to force that belief onto someone else.
So at this point, while putting an end to abortions would still be considered a valuable goal, outlawing them doesn't seem to be the proper step to take. To say that women must bear children against their will is in contradiction with the principles of freedom in this country. And unless we universally recognize a fetus as a human in our society, there is no cause to circumvent those principles. Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, outlawing them would probably reduce them, but it would not eliminate them. And along with the reduction in the aborting of potential people, we'd have some dire consequences for many of the actual people in our society, and it's unlikely the overall welfare of the society would be increased.
So if abortion is to be stopped, we need to do more than scold and punish people for conceiving unwanted children after the fact. We need to improve sex education and promote the use of contraceptives to keep those situations from arising in the first place. Even then, we'll never achieve 100% effectiveness. Accidents still happen and people still make mistakes. I for one prefer to let those people have an option as to what they will do, choosing according to their own conscience rather than criminalize them because a part of society holds a belief that what they did was wrong.
Conservatives always like to champion personal freedoms, unless it happens to be the freedom to do something they don't agree with like the freedom to have an abortion, the freedom to be gay, the freedom to have kinky sadomasochistic sex. Why they think the government shouldn't be able to tell them what to do, yet they like to try and dictate what two consenting adults can do in the bedroom seems completely contradictory to me. It's always seemed to me the personal freedom of conservatism is really about the freedom from responsibility for your fellow human beings. If you're able to get through life without government help, then everyone else should be able to as well, right? Because everyone else is just like you aren't they? So yes, I'm a moderate with fairly liberal leanings and am perfectly happy with that.
That seems much more "Humane" than making them feel like criminals, by making it illegal or socially reprehensable, when after all... It is Their choice, not ours.
I'd say society does consider suicide socially reprehensible. That's why it is illegal.
btw: Blaming Conservatives is just as tiresome as blaming Liberals.
Think of how sad those people are. They see no way out. Maybe you think people arrive at the decision simply because they don't want to deal with some problem anymore.
Some are sick, some in pain. They stop seeing a point to thier suffering.
Conservatives always like to champion personal freedoms, unless it happens to be the freedom to do something they don't agree with like the freedom to have an abortion, the freedom to be gay, the freedom to have kinky sadomasochistic sex.
Some people don't get it. Abortion ends the life of a human being. Conservatives don't feel that it is an act of personal freedom to have an abortion but a killing usually through butchery. Conservatives are for the right of gays to do what they want. Conservatives disapprove of it but have the right to say so. Furthermore, Conservatives don't believe that gays have a right to shove their agenda down the throats of others. The gay "values" do not supercede traditional values. As for the rest people can do what they want but they don't have the right to make everyone watch.
Why they think the government shouldn't be able to tell them what to do, yet they like to try and dictate what two consenting adults can do in the bedroom seems completely contradictory to me.
It would be if it were true. It isn't. It is liberal propaganda, in other words, lies.
It's always seemed to me the personal freedom of conservatism is really about the freedom from responsibility for your fellow human beings.
Conservatives are as responsible to their family, friends and community as any liberal. In my view more so.
So yes, I'm a moderate with fairly liberal leanings and am perfectly happy with that.
i didn't suggest that i knew what a "typical" conservative was. because i don't. nor do i have a clue what a "typical" liberal is, other than someone whose mission it is to disagree with the "typical" conservative, and vice-versa.
ares, you said: "i didn't suggest that i knew what a "typical" conservative was. because i don't. nor do i have a clue what a "typical" liberal is, other than someone whose mission it is to disagree with the "typical" conservative, and vice-versa." How can you say "methinks what jt is trying to say is that you make the typical conservative look liberal?"
Actually it's a bit of a misnomer to think Conservatives are the far right. Conservatives are actually kind of in the middle, wanting to keep things the way they are and preserve the status quo. It's the reactionaries that are the far right, wanting to make changes as much as the liberals, only instead of moving in new, progressive directions, they want to go back to the "good old days". In some places, the extreme right and the extreme left, both devoted to disrupting the status quo, end up meeting on the other side.
Show the records. Show the numbers that indicate that the Romans killed X number of people. Then show the numbers that indicate that Christianity killed X number of people. Provide real numbers not guess work.
"Some people don't get it. Abortion ends the life of a human being. Conservatives don't feel that it is an act of personal freedom to have an abortion but a killing usually through butchery."
I get it. If you consider a fetus to be a genuine human being, then indeed you would have to see abortion as murder. If you were a woman, and considered the fetus to be a person, and got an abortion anyway, I think you've done something very wrong because of the way you've violated your own beliefs. And I don't necessarily blame anyone who believes that for feeling so strongly against abortion. Why should you be expected to stand by and tolerate what you see as murder?
On the other hand, the belief that a fetus should count as a full-fledged person is a very subjective one that can't really be proven. If anything, I'd say the evidence is more to the contrary. While a fetus is unquestionably a form of life, so is a dog, a mouse, a mosquito, or what have you. We kill various forms of life all the time without a second thought. So just because it is alive doesn't in and of itself make it special. The question is, is it a person? And to answer that, you first have to ask what is a person? (Maybe there's something to Jethro's technique after all?) I think most of us would like to believe that what makes us human is something more than just our body. It has more to do with our minds and spirit. So the presence of a mere body, as represented by a fetus, won't by itself represent proof that there is a person there. So when do things like the mind and spirit come into play? Well science can determine at what point the brain and nervous system develop, which is after the first trimester. And the soul? My belief is it enters the body when one draws their first breath. There is a precedent for that in that Adam didn't come to life until God breathed into him. And it doesn't make much logical sense for God to waste souls on people who are never even born. Even astrology is based on the moment you're born and not the moment you're conceived.
So in the end, if you can't prove that a fetus is a genuine person in all senses of what a person is, and if society as a whole hasn't come to a general consensus on the point, then whatever you believe, you can't rightfully force that belief onto another and make them abide by it. The best you can do is to make the alternatives, adoption, keeping the baby, abstinence, or contraceptives seem like a more attractive choice than abortion.
I see moderates as either weak-kneed or clueless. At least the left has a point of view misguided though it is.
Moderates are people who prefer to use their brain to find the best solution wherever it may lie, instead of using their emotions and sticking to some pre-conceived dogma.
Moderates are people who prefer to use their brain to find the best solution wherever it may lie, instead of using their emotions and sticking to some pre-conceived dogma.
No. Moderates are either to afraid to take a stand or haven't thought about an issue. Moderate is not cinfident of their own thinking capapbilities otherwise they would take a position on issues. As for "sticking to some pre-conceived dogma" I didn't say moderates are liberals.
Interesting thoughts. I think it all comes down to this. First of all I am mostly conservative in my views. You incorrectly summarized the majority of how conservatives view things when you said.
Conservatives always like to champion personal freedoms, unless it happens to be the freedom to do something they don't agree with like the freedom to have an abortion, the freedom to be gay, the freedom to have kinky sadomasochistic sex. Why they think the government shouldn't be able to tell them what to do, yet they like to try and dictate what two consenting adults can do in the bedroom seems completely contradictory to me.
Actually I believe you are incorrect in those assumptions. Yes there are conservatives AND liberals who do care what kind of personal behavior you partake in behind closed doors. Most do not, myself included. If it doesn't hurt me or anyone else I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. They are very different things. I can be tolerant or indifferent to something I might not agree with as long as it's not hurting someone else. I might not like it but I don't have to in order to tolerate it. But some want you to also accept it and want to have you say " I think that is o.k to do that act." They want you not only to tolerate it but accept it as well. More than likeley due to beliefs or values they will probably never accept it but I can tolerate it. That is where I personally come down on the issue. And I think where many unfairly try to categorize conservatives. (yes their are exceptions) If it hurts no one else I really don't care what you do. Now that doesn't mean I have to like it or accept it, just tolerate it without giving it any more creedence than any one persons views. It's when we are told that we should also accept it as well. Abortion is different because another person or being is harmed. I will get to that on the next post as to why I think it's a person or at least as a life form should have some protection. More on that in a min.
No. Moderates are either to afraid to take a stand or haven't thought about an issue. Moderate is not cinfident of their own thinking capapbilities otherwise they would take a position on issues. As for "sticking to some pre-conceived dogma" I didn't say moderates are liberals.
No. Moderates are either to afraid to take a stand or haven't thought about an issue. Moderate is not cinfident of their own thinking capapbilities otherwise they would take a position on issues. As for "sticking to some pre-conceived dogma" I didn't say moderates are liberals.
You're kidding right?
Moderates take a stand on their beliefs and think out the issues.
They're simply unwilling to walk in line with everything that is spoon fed to them from both the "conservatives" & the "liberals".
Where is it written that there are only two sides, two views, or two positions on any issue? Why does the idea of a third view bother you so?
You claim that moderates are afraid to take a stance on an issue. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that moderates are not afraid to disagree with existing positions or to introduce new ones?
First of all I am going to preface my remarks by saying that this is my opinion. That is the hard issue with abortion, opinions and emotions vary so much with abortion that it becomes personal to some. I don't take it or view it as such and respect others opinion on this issue. Currently it is a law and one by which we have to abide. but that's the good thing about our country is that we can debate and work to change a law. I think it all comes down to a question of law and morals as well since we as a society decide laws based on a general moral compass. One of the first and foremost is the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That being said I would ask some questions as to when that life begins or wether or not it is considered a life. The right to life is a basic worldwide human law of nature. First of all as Jethro pointed out we are all here by that process. Yes we kill mosquitoes etc. but we have to decide if a human life is more important than a mosquito or a dog as you put it. I would say yes. Again I care not what someone does except when it harms another person or being and that is where I feel that it is no longer just about one person. I do feel that it is a life, a human life. (1) If it is not a human life then what is it? A baby or fetus or zygote as the pro abortionists like to call it can be aborted at 5 months. There have been babies that lived normal healthy lives when born at 5 months. And less for that matter! So that same child we would kill at 5 months can also be a normal bay at 5 months as well. So in the difference of the time it takes to do a c-section or birth and they are no longer in amnio and the tube is cut and they breathe outside air they go from fetus to baby. Some claim this as a reason for being pro abortion because they say it can't support itself. to me the only difference is that the baby no longer needs the mother to survive. But in truth the only difference between the two 5 month old babies one invitro and the one not (who is born) is their oxygen and food source. They still have the same eyes, mouth, nose, hair, ears etc. They both feel emotion and have the same brain activity. Nothing is unchanged except the food and oxygen source, nothing ! (2) So one minute it's nothing and in the 15 minutes it takes to deliver it it is now a person? And 5 months of age and less that is possible. (3) So if we used the logic that if something or someone is not a person because it can't survive on it'own what about someone on life support or considered brain dead or in need of outside help to breathe ? Do we walk up and unplug them because they can't do it on thier own? To me it is a human life, a very new life that cannot defend for itself even once it's out of the womb, it still needs the parent or someone to take care of it. But those 2 5 month old babies are no different from eachother except for one gets outside support and one gets it from within the womb. Food and oygen source in 2 identical babies of the same age is the only difference. Yet we have no problem killing it.
I asked this in the answer a question w/ a ? forum. Why is it that when we are going to kill or abort a baby it's the only time we refer to it as a fetus? You never hear someone say, hey when's the fetus due? What are you going to name the fetus? Or how's the fetus doing? If the person is going to keep it you call it a baby. If they are going to kill it we call it a fetus. Why so ?
mostly to ensure that its not botched.
Botched smotched. If you wanna die you're gonna make it happen.
Not that I agree with suicide anyway. Much less having a doctor assisting.
OK with me... Also, I am not surprised that two "weatherguessers" have similar views on the world... Being talented often times means accepting the taunts of those who do not possess any.
More like being caught up in a "mob mentality." I don't think either one of you can seperate yourself from liberal dogma.
I don't think that doctors that are practicing medicine should assist in suicides. However, they could make assisited suicide a specilaity or retired doctors could handle those cases.
In a despicable display of affection for degeneracy, Sunday, March 10th was the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, where demonstrators held up signs declaring, "Abortion Providers are Heroes," and activists nationwide were asked to "take out ads in local newspapers." Such a tasteless spectacle shows the depths of the depravity of the abortion movement.
Hmmm, quite the debate so far. I think I'll start on one end and work my way across.
Kit says :
Therefore, since she is the one who bears the consequences of her decision, and she alone, then it is her decision to make - regardless of what that decision may be.
I think this sentiment is a bit narrow-minded and does a disservice to the idea of keeping abortion legal. Obviously it's not *just* the woman that is affected by her decision, it is the child as well. The woman ought to have a right to decide whether or not she is to be pregnant, yet at the same time, there is the right of life granted to all people in our society. When a woman decides to have an abortion, these two rights seem to come into direct confrontation. To deny that and say it's only about the woman won't likely win any arguments as it's too easy to counter it by simply saying "What about the baby?"
Some people like Jethro take the opposite point of view and say the baby and it's rights are really all that matter. It's not even necessarily that the baby is in any way superior to the mother, but rather that the right to life is generally deemed to take precedence over the right to convenience. Therefore killing the child because it's not convenient for you would seem just as wrong as killing the kid after it's born because it wasn't convenient.
So does that mean women are simply condemned to have children whether they want to or not? Well if you believe an unborn child is a legitimate human being with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto, there probably can't be much of any other conclusion.
Yet it's not clear that a fetus is, or should be considered the equivalent of a human. As I posted in another thread, when someone dies, the body remains. Yet we don't consider every dead body to be an actual person with the same rights as everyone else (dead people aren't allowed to own property for example). Most people don't even consider it to be a person, but rather simply the earthly remains of what used to be a person. So let's take that to the other extreme. Isn't it possible that a fetus also is simply a body, a physical entity that does not yet have a soul? Physically, a fetus in the first trimester has no nervous system, no real brain to speak of. Spiritually, it strikes me as illogical that God would give a soul to a body that never even sees the light of day. You can believe what you want, but you can't really prove that a fetus is a genuine person. And as long as that doubt exists, the whole abortion debate falls into a huge gray area. Now it is no longer a contest between the rights of the mother against the rights of the child, but rather the rights of a person versus the rights of something that may be nothing more than a biological entity.
I don't think that makes abortion right per se. I think morally, killing even the potential for life is probably something God would frown on. And as was pointed out, it has it's own earthly drawbacks as well in terms of the guilt one can feel about it later on. It's definitely not a decision to be made lightly. But I wouldn't consider it murder, and even if you do believe it is a genuine person, that's your belief and you don't have the right to force that belief onto someone else.
So at this point, while putting an end to abortions would still be considered a valuable goal, outlawing them doesn't seem to be the proper step to take. To say that women must bear children against their will is in contradiction with the principles of freedom in this country. And unless we universally recognize a fetus as a human in our society, there is no cause to circumvent those principles. Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, outlawing them would probably reduce them, but it would not eliminate them. And along with the reduction in the aborting of potential people, we'd have some dire consequences for many of the actual people in our society, and it's unlikely the overall welfare of the society would be increased.
So if abortion is to be stopped, we need to do more than scold and punish people for conceiving unwanted children after the fact. We need to improve sex education and promote the use of contraceptives to keep those situations from arising in the first place. Even then, we'll never achieve 100% effectiveness. Accidents still happen and people still make mistakes. I for one prefer to let those people have an option as to what they will do, choosing according to their own conscience rather than criminalize them because a part of society holds a belief that what they did was wrong.
Conservatives always like to champion personal freedoms, unless it happens to be the freedom to do something they don't agree with like the freedom to have an abortion, the freedom to be gay, the freedom to have kinky sadomasochistic sex. Why they think the government shouldn't be able to tell them what to do, yet they like to try and dictate what two consenting adults can do in the bedroom seems completely contradictory to me. It's always seemed to me the personal freedom of conservatism is really about the freedom from responsibility for your fellow human beings. If you're able to get through life without government help, then everyone else should be able to as well, right? Because everyone else is just like you aren't they? So yes, I'm a moderate with fairly liberal leanings and am perfectly happy with that.
That seems much more "Humane" than making them feel like criminals, by making it illegal or socially reprehensable, when after all... It is Their choice, not ours.
I'd say society does consider suicide socially reprehensible. That's why it is illegal.
btw: Blaming Conservatives is just as tiresome as blaming Liberals.
JT , you a hard guy on this. You're cold, man.
Think of how sad those people are. They see no way out. Maybe you think people arrive at the decision simply because they don't want to deal with some problem anymore.
Some are sick, some in pain. They stop seeing a point to thier suffering.
Man, JT are you a hard guy on this. You're cold, man.
What's cold about the truth?
Think of how sad those people are. They see no way out. Some are sick, some in pain.
It is sad but, I don't believe the medical community should be assisting in suicide. It's totally contrary to the profession.
"What's cold about the truth?"
Sorry, didn't know I didn't know I was communicating with the possessor of absolute truth.
Didn't know your type had to communicate via the Internet. Thought you were mind talkers or something.
Rick, I don't know how to respond to that. You'd think my years of dealing with Jethro would prepare me for this but, you've floored me on this one.
Does that mean I win?
Conservatives always like to champion personal freedoms, unless it happens to be the freedom to do something they don't agree with like the freedom to have an abortion, the freedom to be gay, the freedom to have kinky sadomasochistic sex.
Some people don't get it. Abortion ends the life of a human being. Conservatives don't feel that it is an act of personal freedom to have an abortion but a killing usually through butchery. Conservatives are for the right of gays to do what they want. Conservatives disapprove of it but have the right to say so. Furthermore, Conservatives don't believe that gays have a right to shove their agenda down the throats of others. The gay "values" do not supercede traditional values. As for the rest people can do what they want but they don't have the right to make everyone watch.
Why they think the government shouldn't be able to tell them what to do, yet they like to try and dictate what two consenting adults can do in the bedroom seems completely contradictory to me.
It would be if it were true. It isn't. It is liberal propaganda, in other words, lies.
It's always seemed to me the personal freedom of conservatism is really about the freedom from responsibility for your fellow human beings.
Conservatives are as responsible to their family, friends and community as any liberal. In my view more so.
So yes, I'm a moderate with fairly liberal leanings and am perfectly happy with that.
You are a liberal.
I didn't know this was a contest.
I didn't know "truth" was that easy to come by.
I didn't know "truth" was that easy to come by.
A lberal wouldn't know that, Lundstrom.
I didn't know "truth" was that easy to come by.
Sometimes it is.
Some things are simply wrong in my mind and nothing is going to change my perspective on those things.
"A lberal wouldn't know that, Lundstrom. "
And a conservative arrogantly seems to think he does.
joe
Conservatives don't claim to know ALL truths only that there are some truths that only fools question.
Jethro is not a Conservative.
I am not? Why do I have my tagline then?!!!
methinks what jt is trying to say is that you make the typical conservative look liberal.
So what is a "typical" conservative?
i didn't suggest that i knew what a "typical" conservative was. because i don't. nor do i have a clue what a "typical" liberal is, other than someone whose mission it is to disagree with the "typical" conservative, and vice-versa.
ares, you said: "i didn't suggest that i knew what a "typical" conservative was. because i don't. nor do i have a clue what a "typical" liberal is, other than someone whose mission it is to disagree with the "typical" conservative, and vice-versa." How can you say "methinks what jt is trying to say is that you make the typical conservative look liberal?"
it was easy. i said that's what i thought jt was trying to say. not that its what i was trying to say.
If you don't know what a typical conservative is how can you think that was what JT meant?
because believe it or not, i do occasionally talk to jt outside of the board.
because believe it or not, i do occasionally talk to jt outside of the board.
That's a lie! I've never seen Ares in my entire life.
:-)
btw: Ares is right on. I consider Jethro an extremist, not the typical Conservative.
Actually it's a bit of a misnomer to think Conservatives are the far right. Conservatives are actually kind of in the middle, wanting to keep things the way they are and preserve the status quo. It's the reactionaries that are the far right, wanting to make changes as much as the liberals, only instead of moving in new, progressive directions, they want to go back to the "good old days". In some places, the extreme right and the extreme left, both devoted to disrupting the status quo, end up meeting on the other side.
I see moderates as either weak-kneed or clueless. At least the left has a point of view misguided though it is.
I am not? Why do I have my tagline then?!!!
So if I want to be a nuclear physicist I should just claim to be in my tagline?
Show the records. Show the numbers that indicate that the Romans killed X number of people. Then show the numbers that indicate that Christianity killed X number of people. Provide real numbers not guess work.
"Some people don't get it. Abortion ends the life of a human being. Conservatives don't feel that it is an act of personal freedom to have an abortion but a killing usually through butchery."
I get it. If you consider a fetus to be a genuine human being, then indeed you would have to see abortion as murder. If you were a woman, and considered the fetus to be a person, and got an abortion anyway, I think you've done something very wrong because of the way you've violated your own beliefs. And I don't necessarily blame anyone who believes that for feeling so strongly against abortion. Why should you be expected to stand by and tolerate what you see as murder?
On the other hand, the belief that a fetus should count as a full-fledged person is a very subjective one that can't really be proven. If anything, I'd say the evidence is more to the contrary. While a fetus is unquestionably a form of life, so is a dog, a mouse, a mosquito, or what have you. We kill various forms of life all the time without a second thought. So just because it is alive doesn't in and of itself make it special. The question is, is it a person? And to answer that, you first have to ask what is a person? (Maybe there's something to Jethro's technique after all?) I think most of us would like to believe that what makes us human is something more than just our body. It has more to do with our minds and spirit. So the presence of a mere body, as represented by a fetus, won't by itself represent proof that there is a person there. So when do things like the mind and spirit come into play? Well science can determine at what point the brain and nervous system develop, which is after the first trimester. And the soul? My belief is it enters the body when one draws their first breath. There is a precedent for that in that Adam didn't come to life until God breathed into him. And it doesn't make much logical sense for God to waste souls on people who are never even born. Even astrology is based on the moment you're born and not the moment you're conceived.
So in the end, if you can't prove that a fetus is a genuine person in all senses of what a person is, and if society as a whole hasn't come to a general consensus on the point, then whatever you believe, you can't rightfully force that belief onto another and make them abide by it. The best you can do is to make the alternatives, adoption, keeping the baby, abstinence, or contraceptives seem like a more attractive choice than abortion.
Why not. You may not be a good nuclear physicist but you can try.
I see moderates as either weak-kneed or clueless. At least the left has a point of view misguided though it is.
Moderates are people who prefer to use their brain to find the best solution wherever it may lie, instead of using their emotions and sticking to some pre-conceived dogma.
The presence of a body (fetus) represents more proof than anything else.
You can prove a body exists, you cannot prove a soul exists.
Oh violating ones beliefs is more wrong than killing a human being?
Moderates are people who prefer to use their brain to find the best solution wherever it may lie, instead of using their emotions and sticking to some pre-conceived dogma.
No. Moderates are either to afraid to take a stand or haven't thought about an issue. Moderate is not cinfident of their own thinking capapbilities otherwise they would take a position on issues. As for "sticking to some pre-conceived dogma" I didn't say moderates are liberals.
Everyone that is alive was conceived.
Give us time.
Our brains are too big, yet too small for our own good.
Allison Wonderland,
Interesting thoughts. I think it all comes down to this. First of all I am mostly conservative in my views. You incorrectly summarized the majority of how conservatives view things when you said.
Actually I believe you are incorrect in those assumptions. Yes there are conservatives AND liberals who do care what kind of personal behavior you partake in behind closed doors. Most do not, myself included. If it doesn't hurt me or anyone else I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. They are very different things. I can be tolerant or indifferent to something I might not agree with as long as it's not hurting someone else. I might not like it but I don't have to in order to tolerate it. But some want you to also accept it and want to have you say " I think that is o.k to do that act." They want you not only to tolerate it but accept it as well. More than likeley due to beliefs or values they will probably never accept it but I can tolerate it. That is where I personally come down on the issue. And I think where many unfairly try to categorize conservatives. (yes their are exceptions) If it hurts no one else I really don't care what you do. Now that doesn't mean I have to like it or accept it, just tolerate it without giving it any more creedence than any one persons views. It's when we are told that we should also accept it as well. Abortion is different because another person or being is harmed. I will get to that on the next post as to why I think it's a person or at least as a life form should have some protection. More on that in a min.
No. Moderates are either to afraid to take a stand or haven't thought about an issue. Moderate is not cinfident of their own thinking capapbilities otherwise they would take a position on issues. As for "sticking to some pre-conceived dogma" I didn't say moderates are liberals.
LOL...some things never change.
It is always good to make moderates laugh!
No. Moderates are either to afraid to take a stand or haven't thought about an issue. Moderate is not cinfident of their own thinking capapbilities otherwise they would take a position on issues. As for "sticking to some pre-conceived dogma" I didn't say moderates are liberals.
You're kidding right?
Moderates take a stand on their beliefs and think out the issues.
They're simply unwilling to walk in line with everything that is spoon fed to them from both the "conservatives" & the "liberals".
Moderates think for themselves.
The more things change............
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. They are very different things.
That's the key right there. Some people don't know the difference. And that's on both sides.
Jethro, Jethro, Jethro...
Where is it written that there are only two sides, two views, or two positions on any issue? Why does the idea of a third view bother you so?
You claim that moderates are afraid to take a stance on an issue. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that moderates are not afraid to disagree with existing positions or to introduce new ones?
Allison Wonderland,
First of all I am going to preface my remarks by saying that this is my opinion. That is the hard issue with abortion, opinions and emotions vary so much with abortion that it becomes personal to some. I don't take it or view it as such and respect others opinion on this issue. Currently it is a law and one by which we have to abide. but that's the good thing about our country is that we can debate and work to change a law. I think it all comes down to a question of law and morals as well since we as a society decide laws based on a general moral compass. One of the first and foremost is the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That being said I would ask some questions as to when that life begins or wether or not it is considered a life. The right to life is a basic worldwide human law of nature. First of all as Jethro pointed out we are all here by that process. Yes we kill mosquitoes etc. but we have to decide if a human life is more important than a mosquito or a dog as you put it. I would say yes. Again I care not what someone does except when it harms another person or being and that is where I feel that it is no longer just about one person. I do feel that it is a life, a human life. (1) If it is not a human life then what is it? A baby or fetus or zygote as the pro abortionists like to call it can be aborted at 5 months. There have been babies that lived normal healthy lives when born at 5 months. And less for that matter! So that same child we would kill at 5 months can also be a normal bay at 5 months as well. So in the difference of the time it takes to do a c-section or birth and they are no longer in amnio and the tube is cut and they breathe outside air they go from fetus to baby. Some claim this as a reason for being pro abortion because they say it can't support itself. to me the only difference is that the baby no longer needs the mother to survive. But in truth the only difference between the two 5 month old babies one invitro and the one not (who is born) is their oxygen and food source. They still have the same eyes, mouth, nose, hair, ears etc. They both feel emotion and have the same brain activity. Nothing is unchanged except the food and oxygen source, nothing ! (2) So one minute it's nothing and in the 15 minutes it takes to deliver it it is now a person? And 5 months of age and less that is possible. (3) So if we used the logic that if something or someone is not a person because it can't survive on it'own what about someone on life support or considered brain dead or in need of outside help to breathe ? Do we walk up and unplug them because they can't do it on thier own? To me it is a human life, a very new life that cannot defend for itself even once it's out of the womb, it still needs the parent or someone to take care of it. But those 2 5 month old babies are no different from eachother except for one gets outside support and one gets it from within the womb. Food and oygen source in 2 identical babies of the same age is the only difference. Yet we have no problem killing it.
I asked this in the answer a question w/ a ? forum. Why is it that when we are going to kill or abort a baby it's the only time we refer to it as a fetus? You never hear someone say, hey when's the fetus due? What are you going to name the fetus? Or how's the fetus doing? If the person is going to keep it you call it a baby. If they are going to kill it we call it a fetus. Why so ?
Lisa Douglas?
Who's that?
Moderates think for themselves.
You're kidding, right?