Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/17/2003 11:20:57 AM EDT
The "Roe" of the landmark Roe v. Wade (search) Supreme Court decision is asking the nation's highest court to overturn its 1973 ruling that made abortion legal throughout the United States. On the 33rd anniversary of her initial lawsuit, which resulted in the high court's historic ruling three years later, Norma McCorvey (search) announced Tuesday she will petition the court to reopen the original case, based on changes in law and technology over the last 30 years. "I'm sorry that I signed that affidavit," McCorvey said during the press conference Tuesday, referring to when she became the plaintiff in the original case. She said the court case "brought the holocaust of abortion" but that with her legal action Tuesday, "I feel good about myself, I really do. I feel like the weight of the world has really been lifted off my shoulders." McCorvey made the announcement at the Ferris Plaza Park in Dallas, just blocks from the Earl Cabell Federal Building, where the original lawsuit was entered. "I long for the day that justice will be done and the guilt from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," McCorvey said in a statement announcing the intent of the motion. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. "The issue is justice for the unborn, justice in this case because it was fraudulent, and justice for what is right." McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion. But abortion-rights groups think McCorvey won't get far in her legal battle. "I don't believe that the courts are going to take this seriously in any sort of legal framework," said Planned Parenthood (search) spokeswoman Elizabeth Toledo. "We know that the majority of Americans still support the right to choose and for reproductive freedom for women." More technology exists now than it did 30 years ago, McCorvey told Fox News Tuesday, such as three-dimensional sonograms that can show women that the fetus growing inside of them is viable. Whereas the argument over when life begins was a philosophical one 30 years ago, it now is a scientific one that says life begins at conception, McCorvey said. "We're just trying to warn women that they do have other alternatives to abortion," McCorvey told Fox News. "There's is no doubt there's an enormous wealth of info we have now in 2003 that we did not have in 1973 … that cannot be ignored," Olivia Gant of the anti-abortion group, American Victims of Abortion (search), told Fox News Tuesday. "The overwhelming majority of Americans are deeply troubled" at the number of abortions completed every year, she said, putting that number at 1.5 million. There were 1.3 million abortions performed in the U.S. in 2000, the last year statistics were available, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit corporation for reproductive health research. In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, more than six in 10 said they oppose completely overturning Roe v. Wade. After arguing the pro-choice side of the abortion debate for years, McCorvey in 1995 converted to Roman Catholicism and is now 100 percent pro-life. "I'm not anti-abortion, I'm pro-life," she said. McCorvey and more than 1,000 other women who have had abortions are including statements in the petition to the court on how abortions have affected their lives. Among the effects, the women say they: became alcoholics; "hated life in general," were "unable to bond with anyone;" suffered from depression, various medical problems, years of mood swings and eating disorders, panic disorder and promiscuity, post-abortion syndrome; "felt empty inside;" "lack of ability to deal adequately with true love and sex in marriage;" went to therapy for anger and other symptoms; and "I'm always thinking about my unborn child." McCorvey's lawyer, Allan Parker, lead attorney for the Texas-based Justice Foundation (search), said recent changes in law make the court's decision no longer just. "Why do women have abortions? Because they don't think they can take care of the child," Parker told Fox News. "I believe with all my heart that it's time for the country to re-examine the social experiment that was abortion," Parker said. He said it often takes years for women to feel and realize the effects abortion has on them. "For many women, it takes 10 or 15 years of denial before they finally recognize what they've done before they finally seek counseling," he said. But it will take more than just another bout of legal wrangling to shatter the opinion of many Americans that what a woman does in her private life should be in her control, Toledo argued. "I think most people agree that preventing unintended pregnancies should be a priority in our healthcare systems," she said. "I think the place where people depart is the intrusion of government and politicians ... intruding into our own personal decision making." McCorvey began her association with one of the most controversial issues in this country in 1970, when she became "Jane Roe," the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit filed to challenge the anti-abortion laws in Texas. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed down its controversial ruling on Jan. 22, 1973. The decision legalized the right to an abortion in all 50 states. McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption. In the 1980s, McCorvey went public with her identity and wrote a book about her life titled I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice. Although there have been many challenges to Roe v. Wade in the past 30 years, McCorvey's legal team says her case is different because the plaintiff is actually asking for the case to be overturned. Under certain rules of law, parties can seek relief from an earlier court order that is no longer supported by law. Parker cited a 1997 decision in the case of Agostini v. Felton, in which the Supreme Court used a post-judgment motion by the plaintiff to overturn the original decision. In the original case decided in 1985, the court prohibited New York City from allowing public school teachers to teach in parochial schools. Twelve years later, petitioners -- some of which were teachers bound by that injunction -- wanted the decision dropped, saying laws and educational policy passed since then made legal what the original injunction was designed to prevent. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed public school teachers to tutor private school students in their private schools. McCorvey's legal team claims there are three major arguments to reopen and overturn the case: • There is more evidence being submitted proving the harmful effects of abortions on women now that should outweigh McCorvey's single, original testimony 30 years ago arguing for abortion. • The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades. • Various "Baby Moses" laws in 40 states say the states will take care of a child if the mother cannot, providing an alternative to abortion.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:27:14 AM EDT
It's murder.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:30:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:31:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 11:32:27 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
I'm against abortion, [b]BUT[/b] I don't think it should be illegal until after a certain date in the gestation period. Your poll is poorly worded, and is similar to many masked anti gun "polls". I'm against many things, but don't demand that our politicians make them legally taboo... Life isn't fair, never has been, never will be...
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:36:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I'll wait here for the first person who wants to protest regarding the "right of the woman to control her own body", while neglecting to notice that the woman apparently needs outside help to control her own body - the abortion doctor. [:)]
View Quote
That's kind of a silly comparison. I guess you are your own physician, and practice home dentistry.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:40:14 AM EDT
if they fail to utilize any of the numerous birth control methods and actually do conceive, i dont give a fuzzy rats ass if they get stretch marks or any of the other petty reasons they might have for not going through with the pregnancy..........its easy, if you dont want the child give it up for adoption after birth. i also believe the world is overpopulated, but i had to go with my concious when deciding with myself between these two issues and im glade that "roe" has decided to do this, its significant and very symbolic
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:43:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:45:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TexRdnec: if they fail to utilize any of the numerous birth control methods and actually do conceive, i dont give a fuzzy rats ass if they get stretch marks or any of the other petty reasons they might have for not going through with the pregnancy..........its easy, if you dont want the child give it up for adoption after birth.
View Quote
Yeah - and if they're dumb enough not to be on birth control when they get raped, then they deserve it!
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:47:34 AM EDT
And the poll is miserably worded - instead of being "for abortion", how about an option that says "I think abortion is wrong, but I don't think the government should be involved in a woman's womb any more than they should be involved in my gun cabinet"?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 11:58:34 AM EDT
I wholeheartedly support a womans right to kill what ever she wants....as long as she admits she has ended a human life. All of this shit about choice is just ducking the responsibility. Ask any woman that has miscarried when she wanted a child, how torn up she was...and asdk someone who has had a abortion how upset they were. Quit letting some lesbian bitch in NOW that says that all male-female sex is rape define who you are.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 12:08:57 PM EDT
I got the beer, I think zaphod was bringing the nachos for this round. :) im out.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 12:20:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: You haven't ever noticed this before? Besides being inconsistent with the traditional model of rights (rights are something you and only you can utilize - you need nobody's help), no other medical procedure is widely touted as a "right", in and of itself.
View Quote
No other medical procedure is a "right" because most are not attacked in such a manner that a fight to declare it so ever develops. Ban Tattooing, and see if a fight doesn't spring forth.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 12:26:33 PM EDT
Which is more important? the womans right to abort, or the babies right to life?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 12:52:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:02:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush: Which is more important? the womans right to abort, or the babies right to life?
View Quote
neither the baby nor the mother have any natural rights. what is right is what happens. ban abortion - it happens in an alley w/ a coat hanger. or she pays someone to beat the shit out of her w/ a baseball bat until she miscarriages. or she has the baby and it dies from neglect. don't ban abortion - it happens in a clinic. personally, i could give a shit. pain is pain and murder is murder. god doesn't respect your right to life, or your right to choose. you have no rights but the ones you claw out on your own and the ones kindness bestows upon you.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:08:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:10:12 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:10:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist:
Originally Posted By jfrush: Which is more important? the womans right to abort, or the babies right to life?
View Quote
neither the baby nor the mother have any natural rights. what is right is what happens. ban abortion - it happens in an alley w/ a coat hanger. or she pays someone to beat the shit out of her w/ a baseball bat until she miscarriages. or she has the baby and it dies from neglect. don't ban abortion - it happens in a clinic. personally, i could give a shit. pain is pain and murder is murder. god doesn't respect your right to life, or your right to choose. you have no rights but the ones you claw out on your own and the ones kindness bestows upon you.
View Quote
Ummmmm... In this country the Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. And correct me if I'm wrong but I think it say's something like this... [b]we are endowed by our creator with certain inaliable rights, among these are --> LIFE <-- liberty and the pursuit of happiness[/b]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:16:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:17:37 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:16:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:26:36 PM EDT by tjmz]
So question....... how many black or mexican crack babies have each of you people adopted? How many down syndrome children have you adopted, because the parents do not want to deal with them. How many times a month do you volunteer to help take care of these children, whom no one wants. How many foster children do each of you take care of? How much money do each of you personally donate to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that EACH of these babies accrue in medical bills in their first 2 years of life? I could never and will never have an abortion, I know that I could not live with myself if I did, so therefore, I take the precautions to make sure that I never have to be in that situation. However, there are compelling reasons for women to in fact abort, or they seem to be at the time, among them rape and horrible genetic defects. If a couple had a daughter who was dying of a horribly painful type of cancer, and they had a choice, put her on a horrible regime of chemotherapy that would continue her life for 6 months before she would die, or take her off everything and let her pass away peacefully, very few people would name them murderers if they chose to take her off support. Instead, they would be supported as parents who made the very difficult choice to give their child peace. Choosing to abort a baby who had no hope of a life once born is the same thing. All of you here say that the women could just have the baby and give that baby up for adoption. Almost no one wants to adopt a white baby with signifigant health problems, and forget about black or hispanic children, the adoption factor is only a reliable option for healthy babies. Otherwise, they end up in a system that offers nothing but pain for the rest of their lives. A lot of religious organizations crow about how women should have their baby, but very few of them actually make it possible for them to do so. When my aunt was 16, she got pregnant, and the father was hispanic, so my grandfather kicked her out of the house. She came to stay with my family to figure out what to do, and our church convinced her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. However, after the whole church came together to convince her to keep it, they ostracized her. No one would talk to her, they all talked behind her back, they would not allow their daughters to hang out with her. She desperately needed love and support, and all she got was condemnation. If she didn't have my mother and father to live with, she would have been out on the street, with no way to support herself. I do not believe that I have any right to tell a girl or a woman in that position what she should or should not do, in my opinion, it is up to her. After all, she is the one who will have to live with both herself and God's judgment, if He does indeed judge her. No one else. Also, anyone who is unwilling to take on the awesome finnancial and emotional responsibility that results from forcing said woman to not abort has no place at the discussion table. Anti's make the same argument about guns. They believe that it is morally wrong to create instruments who's sole purpose is killing. They believe that the misuse of guns is so dangerous, that regular people should just not be allowed to have them. They believe that God would never consider it a persons right to own anything whose sole purpose is death, that the very belief in their creation is a sin. They even pull out the same card...they cry out for the children. They bring out the irony and hipocrisy that most people who want abortion banned and consider themselves pro-life are all for the death penalty, and think it should be applied more liberally. I tell them both the same thing..only God reserves the right to judge moral sin. Edited to Add: This question if very badly worded, and does in fact bring to mind the loaded questions that anti's ask about guns, such as...are you for or against killing people? Don't laugh, I have seen this one. It then leads to the obvious, if you answer no, then how can you support the creation of objects for the sole purpose of killing?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:17:52 PM EDT
I am willing to tolerate abortion only under the following conditions: 1) LIFE of the mother. WHen given the choice between losing two lives and losing only one, then the mother has the right to decide if she wants to run the risk of carrying the baby to term or saving her life. Note, that in this case, the life of the child is not discussed. 2) Rape and/or pre-consent-age incest. Why? because the woman in question became pregnant against her will and/or through no irresponsibility on her part. Yes, the decision is a tragic one, especially since the child is paying for a crime it didn't commit, but neither will I force a woman to carry and bear a child that she in no way took any action to have. I'll encourage her to let the baby live, but if she's not responsible, then she can't be forced. (The rapist, OTOH, should be executed by the same method the child is aborted.) 3) When it is determined medically that the child will be born deformed or with a serious illness. This one's tricky, because it requires definitions for "deformed" and "serious". I'm willing to hear debate on this one. Short version: if my wife and I were going to have a baby and we were told that the child has Down Syndrome, we would NOT have the child. My church may fault me for it, but I will NOT allow a child to suffer like that for their entire life. Like I said, this one's tricky. As for the rest? SCREW THE BITCH. She shouldn't have hopped into bed with the scumbag she didn't want to make a child with.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:21:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:26:58 PM EDT by voilsb]
I think the poll is quite well worded. it asks if I am [b]generally[/b] for or against abortion. it doesn't ask whether I think it should be legal or illegal, or whether I think it is right or wrong, or moral or immoral, or whether it is murder or not. it asks whether I am, in general, for or against abortion. and personally, I am generally against abortion. there are circumstances where it seems reasonable, though. one example would be where giving birth would kill the mother. another would be any time before the zygote becomes a fetus, which is probably a couple of days after conception at the most. once the cell start specializing ("this is a bone cell", "this is a brain cell", "this is a skin cell", "this is a blood cell", etc), it's too late to abort unless there is a very valid medical reason for it. as for rape and sexual assault victims, and extremely low-income families or situations where the newborn would have a very low quality of life, or where the parents simply aren't ready or willing to deal with it, that's what adoption is for. there are plenty of people who want children and can't have them who would be more than willing to raise your unwanted child for you to go off and abort it. edited to add: my view is very similar to zaphod's, except we probably differ for what qualfies under #3, and we definitely disagree in #2. for #2, I think she should give it up for adoption if she isn't willing to care for it, rather than to abort. unless, of course, the birth would fall under numbers 1 or 3.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:24:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist: neither the baby nor the mother have any natural rights. what is right is what happens. ban abortion - it happens in an alley w/ a coat hanger. or she pays someone to beat the shit out of her w/ a baseball bat until she miscarriages. or she has the baby and it dies from neglect. don't ban abortion - it happens in a clinic. personally, i could give a shit. pain is pain and murder is murder. god doesn't respect your right to life, or your right to choose. you have no rights but the ones you claw out on your own and the ones kindness bestows upon you.
View Quote
That kind of twisted and sick mentality leads to only one thing: ANARCHY. No one has natural rights? So your saying that if I find your 6-year-old sister attractive, I can kidnap her from school, spend a month raping her at will, skin her alive, grind her into hamburger, and ship the rest home to your mother without anything adverse happening to me? No? Why? YOUR SISTER DIDN'T HAVE ANY NATURAL RIGHTS. SHe wasn't able to claw them out of life or rely on my kindness. You're one sick puppy. I hope to hell you don't have access to children....
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:26:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By voilsb: I think the poll is quite well worded. it asks if I am [b]generally[/b] for or against abortion. it doesn't ask whether I think it should be legal or illegal, or whether I think it is right or wrong, or moral or immoral, or whether it is murder or not. it asks whether I am, in general, for or against abortion. and personally, I am generally against abortion.
View Quote
Precisely. My few conditions are noted above. I found the poll to be simple and direct.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:27:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:27:46 PM EDT by jfrush]
how many black or mexican crack babies have each of you people adopted? How many down syndrome children have you adopted, because the parents do not want to deal with them. How many times a month do you volunteer to help take care of these children, whom no one wants. How many foster children do each of you take care of? How much money do each of you personally donate to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that EACH of these babies accrue in medical bills in their first 2 years of life?
View Quote
Now that I think about it your right, kill those unwanted babies!
A lot of religious organizations crow about how women should have their baby, but very few of them actually make it possible for them to do so. When my aunt was 16, she got pregnant, and the father was hispanic, so my grandfather kicked her out of the house. She came to stay with my family to figure out what to do, and our church convinced her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. However, after the whole church came together to convince her to keep it, they ostracized her. No one would talk to her, they all talked behind her back, they would not allow their daughters to hang out with her. She desperately needed love and support, and all she got was condemnation. If she didn't have my mother and father to live with, she would have been out on the street, with no way to support herself.
View Quote
Your right! your aunt shouldn't have went through hell for her irresponsibility. She would have been much better off if she would have just killed that pesky child.
I do not believe that I have any right to tell a girl or a woman in that position what she should or should not do, in my opinion, it is up to her. After all, she is the one who will have to live with both herself and God's judgment, if He does indeed judge her. No one else. Also, anyone who is unwilling to take on the awesome finnancial and emotional responsibility that results from forcing said woman to not abort has no place at the discussion table.
View Quote
I stand corrected. We have no right to tell a woman she cannot murder her child. I am officially converted to pro-[s]death[/s] choice.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:29:56 PM EDT
We have people here supporting a horrible medical procedure that kills a baby...when contraceptives are available and even morning after pills are available. I find this astonishing. And we have other people that want to tell us horrible stories of the consequences of one's own actions......that is my point. If you make the baby live with it...otherwise shut the hell up. I can't believe that on a board where we constantly talk about the consequences of our own actions that we can't take responsibility.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:35:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:36:56 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:38:10 PM EDT
As I said, I think abortion is wrong, and I'd much rather see a fetus carried to full term and given up for adoption. However, it's a little disengenuous to argue that because adoption is an option, abortion should be illegal. I hope everyone who takes that position is on the waiting list to adopt the next minority crack baby that's available.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:39:17 PM EDT
FOr those interested in reading the new filing made by "Jane Roe": [url]http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mccorvey1.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:44:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:54:11 PM EDT by Zaphod]
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: It was poiinted out to me that when debating right of ther woman vs life of the child, the [i]quality of life[/i] also should be considered. That is an element of the debate, just as significant as "right of the woman" or "life of the child". The only question is: how can some objective prebirth definition of "quality of life" be developed? An example (and I am not challenging the above parental decision, merely posing a question) of this is the thousands of happy, relatively well adjusted Downs people in our society. Would it have been okay to abort them, or not? Where does one cross the 'point of no contention' regarding the rightfulness of the decision to abort?
View Quote
Yep. It is truly a quandry, and one that requires a great deal of study (both scientifically and ethically) and prayer (for those of us who believe there is such a thing as a God who gave us laws to live by). It will not be easy, but I think, in all honesty to our belief in individual rights, that it should be considered.
The woman has a right to control her own body. Whether she utilizes it is another issue altogether...
View Quote
Agreed, insofar as the child she is carrying is NOT her own body......
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:44:52 PM EDT
And we have other people that want to tell us horrible stories of the consequences of one's own actions......that is my point. If you make the baby live with it...otherwise shut the hell up.
View Quote
[sarcasm] You cold heartless bastard! You expect someone to suffer 9 months, go through labor, get stretch marks and then put the baby up for adoption just because they were irresponsible? Thats too much to ask just to save the life of a human being. [/sarcasm]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:51:21 PM EDT
Couple of things, to wit: The world is filled with people who *ought* to have been aborted. Secondly, abortion can not be murder, as it is a legal medical procedure, murder is a legal term, defined as "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being". So the "abortion=Murder" argument is a fallacy. As I am never going to need an abortion, I am neither for or against it, that decision is best left with the people needing such services. I do wish that retro-active abortions were made legal though.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:53:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: However, it's a little disengenuous to argue that because adoption is an option, abortion should be illegal.
View Quote
No. Abortion should be illegal because it's tantamount to committing murder for the sake of birth control.
I hope everyone who takes that position is on the waiting list to adopt the next minority crack baby that's available.
View Quote
Oh, so it's OUR fault now. No comments on the minority crack whore of a mother, eh?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:54:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush:
And we have other people that want to tell us horrible stories of the consequences of one's own actions......that is my point. If you make the baby live with it...otherwise shut the hell up.
View Quote
[sarcasm] You cold heartless bastard! You expect someone to suffer 9 months, go through labor, get stretch marks and then put the baby up for adoption just because they were irresponsible? Thats too much to ask just to save the life of a human being. [/sarcasm]
View Quote
I bet you'd love to see your wife, gf, or significant other go through all that after being gang raped by members of your favorite minority group. What's that you say? She can take the morning after pill? But that's after conception! Life has begun! Oh, I guess she'll have to carry the little momento of her rape experience around for nine months.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:55:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:58:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 2:01:44 PM EDT by eswanson]
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By eswanson: However, it's a little disengenuous to argue that because adoption is an option, abortion should be illegal.
View Quote
No. Abortion should be illegal because it's tantamount to committing murder for the sake of birth control.
I hope everyone who takes that position is on the waiting list to adopt the next minority crack baby that's available.
View Quote
Oh, so it's OUR fault now. No comments on the minority crack whore of a mother, eh?
View Quote
No. I agree that abortion as a means of birth control is completely fucked up. I think we both agree that abortion in the case of rape or incest should be allowable. My only argument is with people who [i]don't[/i] feel that way, and tout adoption as the logical alternative. People who scream about putting the unwanted baby up for adoption, regardless of whatever problems it may have, but then would never consider taking responsibility for the little crack baby. I'm not saying this well. I think the first responsibility should be to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. If that doensn't happen, then adoption. But I don't think adoption is the cure-all. Edited to add, you know, I was just thinking the other day, what the hell happened to Hielo? And here you are. Long time, no see.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:00:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: Secondly, abortion can not be murder, as it is a legal medical procedure, murder is a legal term, defined as "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being". So the "abortion=Murder" argument is a fallacy.
View Quote
I'll remember you said that should the government pass a law outlawing anyone named "hielo" and ordering them shot on sight. Hell, it'd be legal, no?
As I am never going to need an abortion, I am neither for or against it, that decision is best left with the people needing such services.
View Quote
Cop-out. Remember that in all these cases the poor child pays the price for the mother's "need".
I do wish that retro-active abortions were made legal though.
View Quote
[lol] THERE I agree with you! Ted Kennedy, the whole Klinton bunch, Sarah Brady, etc., etc......
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:03:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: No. I agree that abortion as a means of birth control is completely fucked up. I think we both agree that abortion in the case of rape or incest should be allowable. My only argument is with people who [i]don't[/i] feel that way, and tout adoption as the logical alternative. People who scream about putting the unwanted baby up for adoption, regardless of whatever problems it may have, but then would never consider taking responsibility for the little crack baby. I'm not saying this well. I think the first responsibility should be to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. If that doensn't happen, then adoption. But I don't think adoption is the cure-all.
View Quote
Ah. I stand corrected. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Edited to add, you know, I was just thinking the other day, what the hell happened to Heilo? And here you are. Long time, no see.
View Quote
[>:/] I think you got the wrong guy. In fact, I just responded to a post from hielo. I may speak to myself from time to time, but I don't do it online! [:D]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:05:48 PM EDT
Meant for hielo, not you. Geez, it's not all about you![;)]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:12:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By _twist: neither the baby nor the mother have any natural rights. what is right is what happens. ban abortion - it happens in an alley w/ a coat hanger. or she pays someone to beat the shit out of her w/ a baseball bat until she miscarriages. or she has the baby and it dies from neglect. don't ban abortion - it happens in a clinic. personally, i could give a shit. pain is pain and murder is murder. god doesn't respect your right to life, or your right to choose. you have no rights but the ones you claw out on your own and the ones kindness bestows upon you.
View Quote
That kind of twisted and sick mentality leads to only one thing: ANARCHY. No one has natural rights? So your saying that if I find your 6-year-old sister attractive, I can kidnap her from school, spend a month raping her at will, skin her alive, grind her into hamburger, and ship the rest home to your mother without anything adverse happening to me? No? Why? YOUR SISTER DIDN'T HAVE ANY NATURAL RIGHTS. SHe wasn't able to claw them out of life or rely on my kindness. You're one sick puppy. I hope to hell you don't have access to children....
View Quote
just because i live by a code of righteousness doesn't mean that it is 'right'. i don't rely on a piece of paper or tackless conversation to keep what i think is 'right' in check. i rely on my sidearm, legal or not, to keep you from making mysisterburgers. the point that i'm trying to make and you subjugated is that society is a contract of balances and has nothing to do w/ 'inalienable' rights. because they don't exist. little girls do get raped. the good guys don't always win. this is the world that god presented us with and for some sometimes good reasons we created a society on this planet. but just because some piece of paper gives me the 'right' to own a gun and some other piece of paper gives people the 'right' to terminate a life doesn't mean those rights were handed to me by god. stop confusing morality w/ society. oh, and you're an ass for suggesting i'd ever hurt an innocent (in my eyes).
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:12:19 PM EDT
hello eswanson....First I am strongly for any efforts to reduce the number of defective babies. Yep even abortion. It is still killing a baby. I can live with that. Rape....my SO would be dead or lots of dead attackers--no baby. That's her choice. I can support that. And I buy her ammo to make sure she gets that choice. Do you know how many rape victims actually conceive>? That is another straw man argument. I have a better idea---abort rapists.......
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:18:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: Meant for hielo, not you. Geez, it's not all about you![;)]
View Quote
You lookin' at ME? [;)]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:19:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist: just because i live by a code of righteousness doesn't mean that it is 'right'. i don't rely on a piece of paper or tackless conversation to keep what i think is 'right' in check. i rely on my sidearm, legal or not, to keep you from making mysisterburgers. the point that i'm trying to make and you subjugated is that society is a contract of balances and has nothing to do w/ 'inalienable' rights. because they don't exist. little girls do get raped. the good guys don't always win. this is the world that god presented us with and for some sometimes good reasons we created a society on this planet. but just because some piece of paper gives me the 'right' to own a gun and some other piece of paper gives people the 'right' to terminate a life doesn't mean those rights were handed to me by god. stop confusing morality w/ society. oh, and you're an ass for suggesting i'd ever hurt an innocent (in my eyes).
View Quote
What gives you the right to pack a weapon and use it?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:26:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By _twist:
Originally Posted By jfrush: Which is more important? the womans right to abort, or the babies right to life?
View Quote
neither the baby nor the mother have any natural rights. what is right is what happens. ban abortion - it happens in an alley w/ a coat hanger. or she pays someone to beat the shit out of her w/ a baseball bat until she miscarriages. or she has the baby and it dies from neglect. don't ban abortion - it happens in a clinic. personally, i could give a shit. pain is pain and murder is murder. god doesn't respect your right to life, or your right to choose. you have no rights but the ones you claw out on your own and the ones kindness bestows upon you.
View Quote
Actually, Roe vs Wade affects [i]Federal control[/i] of the issue. If it is overturned, the individual states would then get the opportunity to leave abortion legal or ban it. There are also alternatives to abortion.
View Quote
States Rights? Now there's a great idea.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:26:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:37:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I'll wait here for the first person who wants to protest regarding the "right of the woman to control her own body", while neglecting to notice that the woman apparently needs outside help to control her own body - the abortion doctor. [:)]
View Quote
[:D] Didn't take long to eliminate THAT arguement!!
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:44:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By _twist: just because i live by a code of righteousness doesn't mean that it is 'right'. i don't rely on a piece of paper or tackless conversation to keep what i think is 'right' in check. i rely on my sidearm, legal or not, to keep you from making mysisterburgers. the point that i'm trying to make and you subjugated is that society is a contract of balances and has nothing to do w/ 'inalienable' rights. because they don't exist. little girls do get raped. the good guys don't always win. this is the world that god presented us with and for some sometimes good reasons we created a society on this planet. but just because some piece of paper gives me the 'right' to own a gun and some other piece of paper gives people the 'right' to terminate a life doesn't mean those rights were handed to me by god. stop confusing morality w/ society. oh, and you're an ass for suggesting i'd ever hurt an innocent (in my eyes).
View Quote
What gives you the right to pack a weapon and use it?
View Quote
NOTHING. i have the right to protect myself because i protect myself. a right is something that cannot be taken away. if it was my right to own that weapon, how come we are all so nervous about the antis getting their way? what is right is what those in power dictate is right. always and forever. sorry to rain on your natural right love fest, but god kills babies and mothers and bunny rabbits because he has the power to. so don't preach to me about right and wrong.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:48:08 PM EDT
[quote}
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By hielo: Secondly, abortion can not be murder, as it is a legal medical procedure, murder is a legal term, defined as "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being". So the "abortion=Murder" argument is a fallacy.
View Quote
I'll remember you said that should the government pass a law outlawing anyone named "hielo" and ordering them shot on sight. Hell, it'd be legal, no?
View Quote
Exactly, it would be legal then, and as such, would not be murder. You can call it many things, an execution, a lawful killing, but, you may not call it murder. That *was* an easy one, wasn't it?
As I am never going to need an abortion, I am neither for or against it, that decision is best left with the people needing such services.
View Quote
Cop-out. Remember that in all these cases the poor child pays the price for the mother's "need".
View Quote
depends whn you think the clump of cells is endowed with "poor child" status, me, I am up in the air over it, but I guess I fall on the side of at birth, allowing for each individaul birth to denote it's entry into the human race, some fetuses will push the bounds at 4 months or so, some will go a few weeks past 9 months. Again, an easy one.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:49:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By _twist:
Originally Posted By jfrush: Which is more important? the womans right to abort, or the babies right to life?
View Quote
neither the baby nor the mother have any natural rights. what is right is what happens. ban abortion - it happens in an alley w/ a coat hanger. or she pays someone to beat the shit out of her w/ a baseball bat until she miscarriages. or she has the baby and it dies from neglect. don't ban abortion - it happens in a clinic. personally, i could give a shit. pain is pain and murder is murder. god doesn't respect your right to life, or your right to choose. you have no rights but the ones you claw out on your own and the ones kindness bestows upon you.
View Quote
[red]Actually, Roe vs Wade affects [i]Federal control[/i] of the issue. If it is overturned, the individual states would then get the opportunity to leave abortion legal or ban it[/red]. There are also alternatives to abortion.
View Quote
This point does not get made often enough. The US Supreme court created a "right", where none existed before. The Constitution is silent on the matter. Abortion should be a State fight. And YES, abortion IS Murder. Forty States have laws on the books that state the State will take care of a child after birth.... The time to have control of your body, is when you spread your legs, or feel blood rushing to a certain "Member"!![:D] Not when you have to kill someone else to do it.....[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:52:06 PM EDT
Damn! Hi [b]hielo[/b]!!! Good to see ya! EricE
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:09:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By hielo: Couple of things, to wit: The world is filled with people who *ought* to have been aborted. Secondly, abortion can not be murder, as it is a legal medical procedure, murder is a legal term, defined as "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being". So the "abortion=Murder" argument is a fallacy. As I am never going to need an abortion, I am neither for or against it, that decision is best left with the people needing such services. I do wish that retro-active abortions were made legal though.
View Quote
Well, I'll be damn. Welcome back hielo! Your argument is good, and rather obvious in those terms. Abortion is not murder because it's legal. Which brings this question: is murder ONLY a legal construct? Does the concept of murder exist only because the law punishes it?
View Quote
HI HELIO!!! Where ya been??? We get our legal concepts from the Bible, and common law. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." Go back to the original language, and it translates, "Thou shalt not take innocent life". Murder, and many others, are "Biblical" laws first, then man's...
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:14:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 3:23:17 PM EDT by jfrush]
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By jfrush:
And we have other people that want to tell us horrible stories of the consequences of one's own actions......that is my point. If you make the baby live with it...otherwise shut the hell up.
View Quote
[sarcasm] You cold heartless bastard! You expect someone to suffer 9 months, go through labor, get stretch marks and then put the baby up for adoption just because they were irresponsible? Thats too much to ask just to save the life of a human being. [/sarcasm]
View Quote
I bet you'd love to see your wife, gf, or significant other go through all that after being gang raped by members of your favorite minority group. What's that you say? She can take the morning after pill? But that's after conception! Life has begun! Oh, I guess she'll have to carry the little momento of her rape experience around for nine months.
View Quote
OK answer me one question: If I believe that a fetus is a live human being, (which I do). Then how can I advocate killing it just so my wife or girlfreind is not uncomfortable for 9 months? If it happened to my wife, I wouldn't love it at all. I't would kill me, but I fail to see how killing an innocent child would make any of us feel better. My Grandmother was raped when she was young and because she didn't have an abortion I have a wonderful aunt and cousins. And even if I agreed with you in the case of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger (I do think abortion should be legal in this case). That only accounts for a small fraction of abortions. I do have an open mind about this however, If someone can convince me that a fetus is not a live human being I will immediatley convert.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top