User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 5:45:35 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: with that thought, then going to a doctor to save your life should be illeagle too? afterall its gods will, doctors should not be able to sustain life. Well, you [i]could[/i] take my thoughts further and draw that conclusion, but that seems extreme to me. I could argue that doctors can only do what God allows them to, (and I bet many doctors would agree with me). I would have been better off stating that life is a gift from God and should be valued and appreciated. We are all granted life as if we were grated a bunch of money. What we do with it is up to us. Personally, I think it has value and shouldn't be taken so carelessly as to say, "its her decision." A cop out IMHO. --LS |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 5:49:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Replyinjg before I've read the whole thread, so I'm sure I'll be back.
Yes, abortion is murder. However, the only reason I did [b]not[/b] choose "Yes, Absolutely" is because I think that, under certain limited and very difficult circumstances (Rape, Incest, LIFE or PHYSICAL HEALTH of the mother) it is a regrettable but understandable evil. I'm willing to hear arguments concerning physical/mental deformity (Downs, etc.), even though I know, deep in my heart, that aborting a child for such reasons is probably an affront to God. And yes, my belief in God underpins my opposition to abortion. If someone doesn't like that, they can take it up with Him when they go meet Him. I don't care, and will continue to (try to) live my life according to His rules. Pray for those slaughtered on the altar of feminism....... [0:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:02:37 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: I predict 6 pages. Oh yeah, [red]until it is externally viable, it isn't life. Life isn't a state of mind, its a physical ability to sustain itself. Does a life support VICTIM really LIVE? Does an unborn fetus have life until it can life externally from the mother?[/red] I'm not diving into this thread anymore, but its nice to see the poll slanted the way it is. If your thesis about life is true, why is it I go to prison for destroying Eagles eggs, (an endangered species)?? Shall we apply a higher standard to animals than we do humans? Life begins at conception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:09:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: The underlying point is that it abortiong [u]SHOULDN'T[/u] be an [u][b]OPTION[/b][/u] (you use the word option so easily it's almost scary, but, once again, this thread is here for ARFCOMER's opinion's) at all. Isn't it funny that the LAW says a spotted owl egg is a spotted owl, or an eagle egg is an eagle, and I go to prison if I DISTURB it, but a human egg is a "fetus", and I can MURDER it at will....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:15:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The underlying point is that it abortiong [u]SHOULDN'T[/u] be an [u][b]OPTION[/b][/u] (you use the word option so easily it's almost scary, but, once again, this thread is here for ARFCOMER's opinion's) at all. Isn't it funny that the LAW says a spotted owl egg is a spotted owl, or an eagle egg is an eagle, and I go to prison if I DISTURB it, but a human egg is a "fetus", and I can MURDER it at will....... And that is about all one can say. If destroying an eagle egg is killing an eagle (and hence a felony) someone is going to have to explain how killing a fetus is somehow different. Don't hand me the moral relativism bullshit either. Some fucking palestinian animal killed his sister because she MAY have had sex. Your moral relativism is no different. Either killing the innocent is wrong or it isn't. I have sworn my life to defending the innocent. It pains me to know that the most defenseless of all are being killed for convience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:15:41 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: While it may seem like murder in the eyes of the bible thumping christians but that doesn't reflect the majority view in this country. [red]That's the beauty of our system, the laws of our governance are determined by our people, and not by an extremist minority.[/red] If you want to live in a theocracy, I'm sure you'll have no problem getting a visa to Iran, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. Remember this post phil, when your guns are banned by the same "Majority" that is murdering our young.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:19:33 AM EDT
[#7]
I lean to the "its her body" side of the argument...
The only point I would like to make is that if abortion becomes classified as murder and therefore illegal...that it won't stop the practice. Just as gun control doesn't stop gun violence, an abortion ban will only make the people that do practice the procedure outlaws. Though many people will consider the overturning of Roe v Wade as a moral victory, they have to consider the disadvantages that come with it. Ask nurses that worked in hospitals and ERs 35 years ago. How many young girls were coming in suffering from illegal or coathanger abortions. Just because it was against the law, desperation to avoid having a child drove what otherwise would be a sensible person to an insensible decision. Edited to add that I'm not trying to thump my chest with the "coathanger" argument as a symbol for pro-choice. Just trying to show that you can't legislate goodness into a person. Glad to see the discussion being somewhat civilized thus far. Realistically...I wonder if there ever will be a "right" answer to this question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:20:16 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: While it may seem like murder in the eyes of the bible thumping christians but that doesn't reflect the majority view in this country. [red]That's the beauty of our system, the laws of our governance are determined by our people, and not by an extremist minority.[/red] If you want to live in a theocracy, I'm sure you'll have no problem getting a visa to Iran, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. Remember this post phil, when your guns are banned by the same "Majority" that is murdering our young.... Amen to that liberty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 6:22:42 AM EDT
[#9]
The only point I would like to make is that if abortion becomes classified as murder and therefore illegal...that it won't stop the practice. No, it won't stop the practice, but atleast it will show that the Gov doesn't condone the morally shameful act..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 7:14:02 AM EDT
[#10]
No doubt it's murder, what else do ou want to call it? Maybe I'm way off base but I've never heard or read about a self-defense based abortion. Either way I also don't believe it can be stopped by laws anymore than the murders that happen outside the womb. I don't really know if there an answer will really solve this problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 7:24:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: It is simply none of the government's business and is a decision to be made by each according to their own faith. The murder of future tax payers IS a concern to govt. Murder has NOTHING to do with "faith"... Arguing that we need to bring children into the world in order to support a bloated and overbearing government is about the weakest argument I have ever seen you post. Your assertions that abortion is murder are based upon your religious faith, and that is fine. Such assertions are not, however, an argument that will have any effect on those not sharing your religious faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 7:34:05 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While it may seem like murder in the eyes of the bible thumping christians but that doesn't reflect the majority view in this country. [red]That's the beauty of our system, the laws of our governance are determined by our people, and not by an extremist minority.[/red] If you want to live in a theocracy, I'm sure you'll have no problem getting a visa to Iran, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. Remember this post phil, when your guns are banned by the same "Majority" that is murdering our young.... Amen to that liberty. Implicit in your post is the concept that the majority supports gun rights. I don't think evidence would bear that out. There seem to be two camps of roughly equal size and a large ambivalent slice in the middle. In any event, the function of a CONSTITUTIONAL protection, which requires a SUPERMAJORITY vote to amend, ensures that even a simple majority cannot alter the fundamentals of the system set up by that constitution. So to all who believe the RKBA is guaranteed by the second amendment, the above counterpoint is not relevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 8:15:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is simply none of the government's business and is a decision to be made by each according to their own faith. The murder of future tax payers IS a concern to govt. Murder has NOTHING to do with "faith"... Arguing that we need to bring children into the world in order to support a bloated and overbearing government is about the weakest argument I have ever seen you post. [red]Your assertions that abortion is murder are based upon your religious faith, and that is fine. Such assertions are not, however, an argument that will have any effect on those not sharing your religious faith.[/red] This is part of the main problem with solving today's issues, this very closed minded approach to anything outside of what you believe solves nothing. What's more, when you refuse to even consider other points of view you become very ignorent very fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 8:29:09 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The underlying point is that it abortiong [u]SHOULDN'T[/u] be an [u][b]OPTION[/b][/u] (you use the word option so easily it's almost scary, but, once again, this thread is here for ARFCOMER's opinion's) at all. Isn't it funny that the LAW says a spotted owl egg is a spotted owl, or an eagle egg is an eagle, and I go to prison if I DISTURB it, but a human egg is a "fetus", and I can MURDER it at will....... No man is an island--" Much as we may feel and act as individuals, our race is a single organism, always growing and branching -- which must be pruned regularly to be healthy. This necessity need not be argued, anyone with eyes can see that any organism which grows without limit always dies in its own poisons. The rational question is whether pruning is best done before or after birth. Being an incurable sentimentalist I favor the former of these methods -- killing makes me queasy, even when it's a case of "He's dead and I'm alive and that's the way I wanted it to be." But this may be a matter of taste. Some shamans think that is better to be killed in a war, or to die in childbirth, or to starve in misery, than never to have lived at all. They may be right. But I don't have to like it -- and I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 8:40:02 AM EDT
[#15]
No man is an island--" Much as we may feel and act as individuals, our race is a single organism, always growing and branching -- which must be pruned regularly to be healthy. This necessity need not be argued, anyone with eyes can see that any organism which grows without limit always dies in its own poisons. The rational question is whether pruning is best done before or after birth. Being an incurable sentimentalist I favor the former of these methods -- killing makes me queasy, even when it's a case of "He's dead and I'm alive and that's the way I wanted it to be." But this may be a matter of taste. Some shamans think that is better to be killed in a war, or to die in childbirth, or to starve in misery, than never to have lived at all. They may be right. But I don't have to like it -- and I don't. The above equates to; Poeple have no idea of how to play God, so [b]DON'T[/b]. Give what [u][b]YOU[/b][/u] have created a chance, and stop being so damn selfish with your own life! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:06:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is simply none of the government's business and is a decision to be made by each according to their own faith. The murder of future tax payers IS a concern to govt. Murder has NOTHING to do with "faith"... Arguing that we need to bring children into the world in order to support a bloated and overbearing government is about the weakest argument I have ever seen you post. Really?? You think the "compelling interest" of govt is weak?? It's used ALL the time. Your assertions that abortion is murder are based upon your religious faith, and that is fine. Such assertions are not, however, an argument that will have any effect on those not sharing your religious faith. I have not mentioned religion, why have you? My assertions, (thus far), about human life are based on the SAME assertions by govt and communists, that an owl or eagle EGG are the same as an owl or an eagle!! Note it's many of the same people who are FOR abortion, that are PROTECTING unborn owls and eagles and FISH for petes sake! If Satan himself were making the law he couldn't do it better!! Kill an unborn animal go to prison. Kill a human, good for you, it's your RIGHT! HA!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:21:21 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While it may seem like murder in the eyes of the bible thumping christians but that doesn't reflect the majority view in this country. [red]That's the beauty of our system, the laws of our governance are determined by our people, and not by an extremist minority.[/red] If you want to live in a theocracy, I'm sure you'll have no problem getting a visa to Iran, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. Remember this post phil, when your guns are banned by the same "Majority" that is murdering our young.... Amen to that liberty. Implicit in your post is the concept that the majority supports gun rights. I don't think evidence would bear that out. There seem to be two camps of roughly equal size and a large ambivalent slice in the middle. I don't know how you reach that conclusion. I said the same "majority" wants to ban your guns. In any event, the function of a CONSTITUTIONAL protection, which requires a SUPERMAJORITY vote to amend, ensures that even a simple majority cannot alter the fundamentals of the system set up by that constitution. So to all who believe the RKBA is guaranteed by the second amendment, the above counterpoint is not relevant. There is no more a Constitutional protection for abortion, than there is a guarentee of healthcare, or housing. The Federal govt. has no authority here, as the Constitution is silent on the matter. HOWEVER, do you think the people who wrote "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in-alienable rights, that among these rights, the right to [b]Life[/b], Liberty and..." would say abortion was ok?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:47:02 AM EDT
[#18]
Really?? You think the "compelling interest" of govt is weak?? It's used ALL the time. Yes. They way you used it sets up the taxpayer as seveant to the government, which, tinfoil arguments to the contary, I believe to be specious. Your assertions that abortion is murder are based upon your religious faith, and that is fine. Such assertions are not, however, an argument that will have any effect on those not sharing your religious faith. I have not mentioned religion, why have you? My assertions, (thus far), about human life are based on the SAME assertions by govt and communists, that an owl or eagle EGG are the same as an owl or an eagle!! First off, please accept my apology for thinking you had based all of your argument on religion. Sorry about that! As for your bird egg/fetus analogy, it looks good on the surface, but as soon as you start to zoom in a little bit, it starts to lose validity, IMHO. For example, the bird egg laws have not made it all the way up to the supreme court, but the human law has, so these are not apple to apple. Note it's many of the same people who are FOR abortion, that are PROTECTING unborn owls and eagles and FISH for petes sake! If Satan himself were making the law he couldn't do it better!! Kill an unborn animal go to prison. Kill a human, good for you, it's your RIGHT! HA!! It is all about definitions. The [i]legal[/i] definition of a human life is different from that of a bird. As human life is now legally defined, abortion up to whatever the date is, is NOT murder. You obviously do not agree with the current definition. Why not? Oh, and it is equally ironic that those who oppose abortion are typically all in favor of the death penalty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:51:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Abortion is murder. If I ran down a preganant woman at the same stage as some abort, I would be charged with 2+ counts of vehicular homicide.
As has been said in other threads, and possibly on the page 2 of this one I didn't read, that's one of the interesting aspects of the unfortunate Laci Peterson case. How many counts of murder? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:57:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Oh, and it is equally ironic that those who oppose abortion are typically all in favor of the death penalty. And you equate a murderer to a baby? The murderer made a "choice". That child is completely innocent. Of course, we are all for "choice" now aren't we? Nice logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:57:43 AM EDT
[#21]
Father's rights.
[:(!] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:04:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Until a fetus is viable on its own, it is only a parasitic growth on its host body.
The "morality" issue of the arguement is just christian cult propaganda.[rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:05:21 AM EDT
[#23]
I wouldn't want to be standing before God someday with (innocent) blood on my hands.
Ditto on "Father's Rights" and...IBTL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:07:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Really?? You think the "compelling interest" of govt is weak?? It's used ALL the time. Yes. They way you used it sets up the taxpayer as seveant to the government, which, tinfoil arguments to the contary, I believe to be specious. You don't think govt. has a "compelling interest" in seeing citizens survive?? Your assertions that abortion is murder are based upon your religious faith, and that is fine. Such assertions are not, however, an argument that will have any effect on those not sharing your religious faith. I have not mentioned religion, why have you? My assertions, (thus far), about human life are based on the SAME assertions by govt and communists, that an owl or eagle EGG are the same as an owl or an eagle!! First off, please accept my apology for thinking you had based all of your argument on religion. Sorry about that! As for your bird egg/fetus analogy, it looks good on the surface, but as soon as you start to zoom in a little bit, it starts to lose validity, IMHO. For example, the bird egg laws have not made it all the way up to the supreme court, but the human law has, so these are not apple to apple. Not true, the endangered species act has been held Constitutional by the court. Note it's many of the same people who are FOR abortion, that are PROTECTING unborn owls and eagles and FISH for petes sake! If Satan himself were making the law he couldn't do it better!! Kill an unborn animal go to prison. Kill a human, good for you, it's your RIGHT! HA!! It is all about definitions. The [i]legal[/i] definition of a human life is different from that of a bird. As human life is now legally defined, abortion up to whatever the date is, is NOT murder. You obviously do not agree with the current definition. Why not? Because, life is life. How can a birds life start in the egg, and a human being does not. It either is, or isn't. We protect animal life better than human life. Oh, and it is equally ironic that those who oppose abortion are typically all in favor of the death penalty. You don't know the difference between murder, and killing do you?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:07:24 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: It's great to stand there decrying abortion as murder when it isn't your 16 year-old daughter that's pregnant. Or you. Adoption is an option. [:)] Abortion [i]is legal[/i]. What we're discussing here is how people feel about it [i]morally[/i]. Thats the root isue isint it... MORALITY. Morality is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate. Morals are usually rooted deep in religion and anytime you start pushing your morals on someone else, to me thats pushing your religion on others which is unconstitutional. If you believe it is murder cause the bible says so, fine. But if some athiest femo-nazi vagithug wants to have an abortion and you start trying to legislate based off of religion, I'll see you on the battlefield. I will not tolerate others pushing their religion on others. If we start, we will be no better than the Taliban. Little bit of a side note. I am sick and tired of the damn atheists pushing their religion on me. Atheism : the doctrine that there is no deity (from webster) Religion: : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (webster also) Atheism is a religion. STOP TRYING TO FORCE AN ATHEIST STATE. STOP PUSHING YOUR RELIGION ON ME! Bottom line. You cannot legislate morality. [peep] Runs to the sidelines and grabs a bag of jiffy-pop:: |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:30:40 AM EDT
[#26]
[b]You don't think govt. has a "compelling interest" in seeing citizens survive??[/b]
You said "tax payers" before, not citizens, which led me to believe that the payment of taxes was the point you were trying to make. [b]Not true, the endangered species act has been held Constitutional by the court. [/b] Really? Didn't know that. If you want another example, laws concerning humans and laws concerning animals are almost always different, because animals and people are not the same in the eyes of the law. You obviously do not agree with the current definition. Why not? [b]Because, life is life.[/b] Don't tell me you ran off and joined PETA!! [}:D] [b] How can a birds life start in the egg, and a human being does not. It either is, or isn't.[/b] I don't know the legal reason, but how about because they are totally different methods of gestation? The bird egg continues to develop without any additional nutrients form the mother, etc., etc. Oh, and it is equally ironic that those who oppose abortion are typically all in favor of the death penalty. [b]You don't know the difference between murder, and killing do you??[/b] Who was it a few lines up that said "life is life"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:31:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Bottom line. You cannot legislate morality. [peep] Runs to the sidelines and grabs a bag of jiffy-pop:: So what are laws against murder? Isn't that legislating morality? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:06:20 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Oh, and it is equally ironic that those who oppose abortion are typically all in favor of the death penalty. [b]You don't know the difference between murder, and killing do you??[/b] Who was it a few lines up that said "life is life"? Life is the same word as life, and means the same. FYI, Murder is the taking of innocent life, "killing", is the taking of life with no thought of innocence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:08:44 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line. You cannot legislate morality. [peep] Runs to the sidelines and grabs a bag of jiffy-pop:: So what are laws against murder? Isn't that legislating morality? Yep, that is legislating morality. Does it work? Nope. In my opinion, Murder is a unique issue. I do not think there is a single, sane person in the world who bleieves murder is right. Every religion, at least the ones I know of, have rules agains cold-blodded murder. Now we are gonna start talking about definitions. And we can go round and round but I honestly think that it is still what you morally define as murder. Talk to a person here. Is eating a thick, jucy steak considered murder? doubtful. Talk to an uber hippy tree-hugger, eating a cow is murder. Its all in the morals in the individual And you cannot decide what is leagle or not based on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:14:36 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line. You cannot legislate morality. [peep] Runs to the sidelines and grabs a bag of jiffy-pop:: So what are laws against murder? Isn't that legislating morality? Yep, that is legislating morality. Does it work? Nope. In my opinion, Murder is a unique issue. I do not think there is a single, sane person in the world who bleieves murder is right. Every religion, at least the ones I know of, have rules agains cold-blodded murder. Now we are gonna start talking about definitions. quote] Nonsense, suttee in India was practiced up until recently. Honor killings happen all the time in Muslim countries. In the name of religion how many people have killed women and children out of an idea of "righteousness"? Your premise that murder is univerisally decried and therefore abortion is acceptable is false. Keep swinging. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:16:46 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: [b]Not true, the endangered species act has been held Constitutional by the court. [/b] Really? Didn't know that. If you want another example, laws concerning humans and laws concerning animals are almost always different, because animals and people are not the same in the eyes of the law. You are correct, but WHY are people "Lower" than the animals in the law?? Are we not a "higher" life form? (Now we can get to religion if ya wanna [:D]) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:18:48 AM EDT
[#32]
How can a birds life start in the egg, and a human being does not. It either is, or isn't. I don't know the legal reason, but how about because they are totally different methods of gestation? The bird egg continues to develop without any additional nutrients form the mother, etc., etc. The above has got to be the most pathetic reason for trying to justify why the eagle embryo's are protected and human embryo's aren't... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:21:10 AM EDT
[#33]
How can a birds life start in the egg, and a human being does not. It either is, or isn't. I don't know the legal reason, but how about because they are totally different methods of gestation? The bird egg continues to develop without any additional nutrients form the mother, etc., etc. So if you stop feeding a new-born, it will be OK? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:38:11 AM EDT
[#34]
I very firmly believe in the individual rights of human beings. Having said that, I also believe that the life of a human being begins at conception. To me, any other definition is merely arbitrary.
With that preface in place, here goes my wacky take on things: The unborn child does indeed have the right to live, but not at the expense of the mother, or her body. If you make the argument that the mother is obligated to give her body to her child because she had a part in the creation of said child, at what point would that "contract" be terminated? At birth? 5 years? 18 years? Never? If a child were born without kidneys, should the mother be "forced" to give one of her kidneys to keep the child alive? What if that child was 40 years old? My hope is that at some point in the future, instead of aborting a fetus, the child could be raised outside of the womb until it could sustain itself (in a rudimentary physical sense) and (hopefully) be adopted. Until that time, I don't think it is morally correct to force someone (the mother) to sacrifice her body for the benefit of another human being (the child). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:38:27 AM EDT
[#35]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Bottom line. You cannot legislate morality. Runs to the sidelines and grabs a bag of jiffy-pop:: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what are laws against murder? Isn't that legislating morality? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, that is legislating morality. Does it work? Nope Once again, even though it may not work well, and there would be those that would get illegal abortions, it would still show that the Gov has some level of respect for those who can't deffend themselves.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:46:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Bottom line. You cannot legislate morality. Runs to the sidelines and grabs a bag of jiffy-pop:: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what are laws against murder? Isn't that legislating morality? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, that is legislating morality. Does it work? Nope Once again, even though it may not work well, and there would be those that would get illegal abortions, it would still show that the Gov has some level of respect for those who can't deffend themselves.... Hell, I would be satisfied if we stopped subsidizing abortion clinics with federal tax-dollars. I do like the theory that if a law isn't 100% effective, it shouldn't be passed. All gun laws would go away! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 11:55:44 AM EDT
[#37]
I believe in abortion, I believe in war, and I believe in killing the SOB who would hurt my wife and kids. Is it murder, no way! Each is an intentional act to rectify a dire circumstance. Do we feel bad about them, oh yeah, but some things just need doing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 12:20:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: [b]Not true, the endangered species act has been held Constitutional by the court. [/b] Really? Didn't know that. If you want another example, laws concerning humans and laws concerning animals are almost always different, because animals and people are not the same in the eyes of the law. You are correct, but WHY are people "Lower" than the animals in the law?? Are we not a "higher" life form? (Now we can get to religion if ya wanna [:D]) Heh. You want me to reconcile logic and the law???? I'm gonna have to pass on that one, my friend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 12:23:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: How can a birds life start in the egg, and a human being does not. It either is, or isn't. I don't know the legal reason, but how about because they are totally different methods of gestation? The bird egg continues to develop without any additional nutrients form the mother, etc., etc. The above has got to be the most pathetic reason for trying to justify why the eagle embryo's are protected and human embryo's aren't... Of course it is pathetic! Feel free to supply your own reasons why our engangered national symbol has different laws governing it than a fetus. I gave the first thing I thought of. The real question is why on earth anyone would consider the comparison valid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 12:27:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: How can a birds life start in the egg, and a human being does not. It either is, or isn't. I don't know the legal reason, but how about because they are totally different methods of gestation? The bird egg continues to develop without any additional nutrients form the mother, etc., etc. So if you stop feeding a new-born, it will be OK? The point was that one develops externally from the mother, whie the other is still inside and literally a part fo the mother. At this time I will cease describing the differences between birds and people. [BD] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 12:42:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Wise move Emoto [:)], seeing as how a mere bird (albeit a national symbol) could compare to a human [;)].
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 12:49:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Wise move Emoto [:)], seeing as how a mere bird (albeit a national symbol) could compare to a human [;)]. Yeah, that was the only smart thing I have done today. The rest of today has been like one long car crash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 12:54:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Wise move Emoto [:)], seeing as how a mere bird (albeit a national symbol) could compare to a human [;)]. Yeah, that was the only smart thing I have done today. The rest of today has been like one long car crash. [lol] I hear ya [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 2:18:32 PM EDT
[#44]
Its murder...
Sorry to bring up an old post, but I have seen exactly what happens to those poor soul's. I watched an abortion video, only depicting its aftermath on both the women and the child. This video had no commentary, only classical music in the background. What I saw in that video was the most horrific thing I have without a doubt seen in my life. Legs, arms, torso's in a DUMPSTER, a head torn in half, eyelids missing, lower jaw gone... bloody and torn. This head was a specimen floating in a fucking jar. It damn looked human to me! Intestines, spines, and every other peice imaginable laying in a bucket on the floor... Is this what life is now? A collection of cells? An inconvenience to the parents? Everybody who was with me immediatly realized what abortion is, and that is cold blooded murder. These images will stick with me the rest of my life. I wish they would show the murderer what they have just done to their "fetus". Ubeleiveable how morals have plumeted so quickly in 60 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 2:19:09 PM EDT
[#45]
i've been playing a game called civilization for many, many years...
ceremonial burial is a cultural advancement that leads a civilization to develop religion. We have ceramonal burials for our dead and stillborn but we do not for miscarriages (naturally occurring "abortions"). Therefore "defining" fetuses as a living being is a recent thing... makes me think this is about "preachers" playing politicians. abortions became legal NOT for birthcontrol but to give doctors the chance to save mothers lives which were at risk giving birth due to medical issues. making abortions illegal will be condeming those women to death... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 5:47:58 PM EDT
[#46]
abortions became legal NOT for birthcontrol but to give doctors the chance to save mothers lives which were at risk giving birth due to medical issues. making abortions illegal will be condeming those women to death... Abortions were used [u][b]IN THE BEGINIG[/b][/u] to save the life of the mother. Today, in [b]modern[/b] times it [b]IS[/b] used as birth control. So for the .72% of abortions today to save the life of the mother, that's all fine and dandy. For the 99.28% that aren't, your theory is outdated and......irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:40:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is simply none of the government's business and is a decision to be made by each according to their own faith. According to my faith, Christians are immoral and should be killed, so it is none of the governments business. As long as I am deciding upon faith. See there? You just made an excellent argument for why the abortion issue should [b]not[/b] be decided by the GOVERNMENT based on RELIGION. In other words, the world's various religions and faiths are not in agreement, so for the government to pick one would be wrong. We have too much government already. You seem to want more. I don't. [red]One of the legitimate functions of govt. is to protect the lives of it's people. My point is that the decision has nothing to do with faith. I am opposed to it by reason, not faith. [/red] The other argument I hate is that it is OK to abort until the child can survive independently from the mother. By that logic it is OK to abort until about the age of 10 or so. A two year old can't survive independent of the care of its mother. You misunderstand what "survive independently" means. [red]I don't think so, there is little functional difference. [/red] I just want to know at what point it doesn't become murder. The minute before birth? Ten minutes before? A week before? Three months before? Eight months before? At what point [i]does[/i] it become OK to kill the unborn child? SCOTUS says somewhere around the first trimester, I believe. [red]So the govt. you want less of made the decision for you? And by your reasoning above where you state it is a matter of survivable independence you should be OK with abortion until about the sixth to seventh month. [/red] [size=4]Abortion is murder. It is an act of volition that ends a life. If there is no act of abortion, a child will result. No matter how you color it, it is an act that ends an innocent life. [/size=4] That is why the masturbation argument is stupid, there is no act that results in the loss of life. Abortion is murder for the sake of convinience, nothing more or less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:49:21 PM EDT
[#48]
1 in 4 women will have a abortion in their life. Thats sad think of all the people that might have been to change our world for the better or worst.
Even if you are rapped you should have that child, I realize it sounds to dam cruel but at the same time our state should take care of the mother by making the rapist if caught pay for the mother for the rest of her life even if she gives up the child, Also he needs to be fixed and made for sex is no longer enjoyable and his penis only works to relive himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 8:45:01 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: abortions became legal NOT for birthcontrol but to give doctors the chance to save mothers lives which were at risk giving birth due to medical issues. making abortions illegal will be condeming those women to death... Abortions were used [u][b]IN THE BEGINIG[/b][/u] to save the life of the mother. Today, in [b]modern[/b] times it [b]IS[/b] used as birth control. So for the .72% of abortions today to save the life of the mother, that's all fine and dandy. For the 99.28% that aren't, your theory is outdated and......irrelevant. So you ARE agreeing with my position: abortion must remain legal because it is a valid life-saving medical procedure. It is up to our social institutions to impress upon the population the immorality of using abortions irresponsibly. Just because people are misusing abortions is not reason enough to outlaw it. Just because criminals use guns is not a reason to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them. The problem is not that abortions are legal, the problem is that our schools, churches and faimlies are failing to teach our citizens responsible sexual behaviors. Banning abortions will kill mothers and wives... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 9:51:42 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: abortions became legal NOT for birthcontrol but to give doctors the chance to save mothers lives which were at risk giving birth due to medical issues. making abortions illegal will be condeming those women to death... Where did you get such a stupid-assed idea?? Abortion has ALWAYS been legal to save the life of the mother. The incidence of such abortions is LESS than .75% of the MILLIONS of murders that have been comitted. When you are talking about someones life, it may be a good idea to have a foggy notion of WTH you're talking about... We are murdering our young for "birth control". |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
