Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:31:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 11:34:56 AM EDT by Ken226]
It has passed the senate, is expected to easily pass the house and Bush says he will sign it.[beer]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:36:56 AM EDT
Thank God! Hopefully the Good Lord will smile kindly upon us for this!
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:42:14 AM EDT
What, none of the "Abortion isn't murder, it's a choice" crowd wants to opine about the nonexistant similarity betweeen this and gun control? Good, the first step is done. Now, if we could only outlaw the wholesale murder of children, that'd be great too.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:43:45 AM EDT
Yes, thank God that politicans invented an inflamatory word for an [b]extremely rare[/b] and unfortunate medical problem, and how wonderful that instead of highly trained medical professionals making life-or-death decisions when time is short, a bunch of political windbags can make sweeping and general laws. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:48:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Yes, thank God that politicans invented an inflamatory word for an [b]extremely rare[/b] and unfortunate medical problem, and how wonderful that instead of highly trained medical professionals making life-or-death decisions when time is short, a bunch of political windbags can make sweeping and general laws. [rolleyes]
View Quote
[rolleyes][rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:48:16 AM EDT
How can a law that bans "an extremely rare and unfortunate" medical practice be considered "sweeping and general"? Didn't think so...
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:48:41 AM EDT
And it will be stricken by the supreme court. Plus I can see the lawsuits against the goverment lining up when women die or are injured by this stupidity. Its only done a couple hundred times a year in this country. But when it is performed its needed to save the womans life. So now they are going to die, and the babies are going to die (or be born in a vegatative state) hmm some victory there.. And yes we should all applaud the Christian right for sinking to the same level of STUPIDITY as the anti-gun lobby.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:49:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 11:52:35 AM EDT by 308wood]
what possible medical condition would require a baby to be born feet first and have it's brain sucked out and it's skull crushed and extracted just so the mothers vagina is not stretched? face it. partial birth abortion is equivalent to owning a nuclear device. it's disgustingly unnecessary.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:52:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod: How can a law that bans "an extremely rare and unfortunate" medical practice be considered "sweeping and general"? Didn't think so...
View Quote
Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it? Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using. Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:54:19 AM EDT
Couldn't they perform a C-section if the mother/baby are in danger? I don't see what stopping the baby just before it's born and killing it would help? Of course since I'm not up on the subject I don't lobby for laws on it either way. Wish gun controllers would do the same...
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:55:31 AM EDT
Thank GOD!
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:56:32 AM EDT
Anything coming from people who kill doctors to keep them from killing babies because it's murder can't be good.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:59:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: what possible medical condition would require a baby to be born feet first and have it's brain sucked out and it's skull crushed and extracted just so the mothers vagina is not stretched? face it. partial birth abortion is equivalent to owning a nuclear device. it's disgustingly unnecessary.
View Quote
I would like to own an A-bomb if only for the novelty. I don't really care what peole do to themselves either. I am a libertarian. I shal now wait for the bashing that I will recieve from both sides of the fence. Thank you.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:59:56 AM EDT
Unlike gun-control, I generally think that laws preventing the killing of a child to be a good thing. Does that make me a Nazi?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:04:24 PM EDT
If I understand this procedure correctly, the only time it's ever used is if the mother's life/health are in jeopardy, right? If people are afraid that the procedure will be 'abused', just make a law that allows it only where the life/health of the mother are at stake. I would never support any abortion ban that doesn't include this exception. To me, if there's some kind of catastrophic complication, the mother's life takes priority over that of the child.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:04:52 PM EDT
Yay!!!! and IBTL!!!
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:05:32 PM EDT
another notch
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:09:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it?
View Quote
Oh, yeah..... you're so obviously open-minded on the subject... [rolleyes]
Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers.
View Quote
The law bans ONE procedure. How does it affect the legality of "the widest possible array of abortion procedures" or "permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers"? Where in the law does it say it's now OK for an abortion doctor to be harassed, or assaulted, or threatened, or bombed, or shot, or stabbed, or afflicted by a dose of foul language?
You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using.
View Quote
Yeah, right. The difference, sir, is that my RKBA has yet to injure so much as ONE person in the 11 years I've been a gun owner. Meanwhile EVERY TIME this "necessary" procedure is performed, a child DIES. If you can't see the difference, then maybe it's YOUR brain that shuts down on this topic...
Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates.
View Quote
See my comment above about the right to "choose" vs. the RKBA.
All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons.
View Quote
Just like YOU want to legislate the power to rule over the baby's person and KILL IT at will, without regard to ITS rights.
The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions.
View Quote
Yeah, and I bet you think people should be incarcerated for 25 years for "disturbing" a baby manatee or a Sea Turtle's nest...
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:10:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it?
View Quote
No it [I]doesn't[/I]
Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using.
View Quote
And it's been quite effective hasn't it?
Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions.
View Quote
BULLSHIT! There's a distinct difference between bun control advocates and pro lifers and you know it. The end result of gun control is NO MORE guns in private hands. It's much easier to control a population when they don't have the means to resist. Their "for the children" is an emotional appeal designed to get votes for anti gun legislation. Pro lifers goal is to prevent the MURDER of children, nothing more nothing less. There is a sanctity of life that everyone is entitled to, including unborn children. There is no other ulterior motive to interfere with someone elses life. In fact if you want to start talking about meddling with someone elses life what about the child? Huh, Huh? What's that? Exactly the child doesn't have a say in it which is why us pro-lifers feel the need to step in and take up the fight for them. Someday you might change your mind, I know I did.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:10:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Yes, thank God that politicans invented an inflamatory word for an [b]extremely rare[/b] and unfortunate medical problem, and how wonderful that instead of highly trained medical professionals making life-or-death decisions when time is short, a bunch of political windbags can make sweeping and general laws. [rolleyes]
View Quote
This "logic" is so absurd I don't know where to begin! I hear all the time about how much this procedure is "necessary" - but [b][red] NO ONE[/red][/b] can name or describe the medical condition where beginning deliver, then killing the baby in mid-delivery is the [b][red]ONLY[/red][/b] way to save the life of the mother. [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BEING PERFORMED TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b] This is plain infanticide - nothing else. But if the rarity of this infanticide is enough for you to want to keep it legal, howzabout we legalize the killing of random kindergarteners in public school too - just as long as we keep the total body count to under 200 per year. This is sickening that it still has to be debated - but I suppose with the amount of sheer [b]IGNORANCE[/b] on display by supporters of partial-birth abortions I'd be naive to hope for anything else. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:11:37 PM EDT
someone get me a beer while they're up?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:12:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Anything coming from people who kill doctors to keep them from killing babies because it's murder can't be good.
View Quote
People who kill doctors because those doctors are killing children are murderers in their own right, and should be treated as such. Don't you dare insinuate that just because I believe that a baby in the womb has a right to live, that I somehow condone the acts of these lunatics. I suppose that the freaks/terrorists over at the Earth Liberation Front are supported by all hunters, since they love the outdoors, too? Please, the lack of logic in such a comparison is laughable.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:15:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 12:17:03 PM EDT by Nimrod1193]
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch: If I understand this procedure correctly, the only time it's ever used is if the mother's life/health are in jeopardy, right? If people are afraid that the procedure will be 'abused', just make a law that allows it only where the life/health of the mother are at stake. I would never support any abortion ban that doesn't include this exception. To me, if there's some kind of catastrophic complication, the mother's life takes priority over that of the child.
View Quote
The only problem with including an exception for the life/health of the mother is that in the past, the term "health of the mother" has been interpreted pretty broadly, to include the mental stress of having a child. Additionally, experts in the field of abortion (people who have actually [b]performed[/b] them) have themselves testified that the procedure itself is [b]never[/b] necessary, because there are other, (slightly) less barbaric procedures that are as safe to the mother.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:17:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lostwildcat: Can someone clarify this for me? Is this ban saying that if the mother is in serious duress that they can not abort the baby or are they saying that you cant abort the baby UNLESS the mother is in serious duress?
View Quote
The latter.
Both are still killing a baby, but if the mother is dying i have different feelings about it.
View Quote
I agree. As much as it rends my heart to think this way, it is better to lose one life rather than two. I am thankful that the Lord has not chosen to test my Faith in that awful manner. What a nightmare that must be, especially if the poor child is wanted and loved!
If your just an irresponsible Fu#$ head who decided at the last minute you dont want it then tough shit. anyone?
View Quote
Ditto, again. Yes, women have a "choice". They have a choice with whom and when they choose to hop in the sack and spread 'em. If you did that of your own violition, deal wit the responsibilities of your actions.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:18:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lostwildcat: Can someone clarify this for me? Is this ban saying that if the mother is in serious duress that they can not abort the baby or are they saying that you cant abort the baby UNLESS the mother is in serious duress? Both are still killing a baby, but if the mother is dying i have different feelings about it. If your just an irresponsible Fu#$ head who decided at the last minute you dont want it then tough shit. anyone?
View Quote
I can only speak for myself but I support abortion in 2 cases...rape or if the pregnancy seriously affects the life of the mother. That said most times there's a problem the woman's body will miscarry ON IT'S OWN. The way nature intended it to be. Also if it's that late term it has one hell of a chance to survive if born by C-section. My best friends son was born 3 months early and weighed 2lbs. Aside from some issues with his vision he's a happy healthy 20 month old. They can work miracles with little kids these days.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:19:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER: I know I did.
View Quote
[:(] So did I... I am embarrassed to no end that I was once pro-"choice". [puke] Thankfully, late in 1992 my brain engaged and I saw the light, thank God!
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:20:38 PM EDT
the abortionists are in good company clinton, schumer, feinstein bwa ha ha ha
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:21:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod: Yes, women have a "choice". They have a choice with whom and when they choose to hop in the sack and spread 'em. If you did that of your own violition, deal wit the responsibilities of your actions.
View Quote
Which in my basic contention with abortion in general. It's used as a form of birth control and promotes a horrible lack of responsibility. You makes your bed, you gots to lie in it.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:22:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:26:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER: I know I did.
View Quote
[:(] So did I... I am embarrassed to no end that I was once pro-"choice". [puke] Thankfully, late in 1992 my brain engaged and I saw the light, thank God!
View Quote
Without delving into my personal life too far lets just say that in mid 2000 a wayward young soldiers (questioning) faith was tested. Luckily I saw the light and once again accepted the LORD as my savior. I tell you what it's the best damn thing I've done so far.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:26:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By Zaphod: How can a law that bans "an extremely rare and unfortunate" medical practice be considered "sweeping and general"? Didn't think so...
View Quote
Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it? Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using. Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions.
View Quote
Oh, get a clue. Anti-gunners don't compare to anti-abortionists in any logical way. If they were the same, the pro-lifers would be trying to have the tools that kill the babies banned. Or anti-gunners would be crying to make it illegal to shoot someone (DOH, it already is). You're comparing apples to oranges. It's illegal to kill someone, but the anti's want guns banned because some people make the decision to use a gun to (illegaly) murder someone else. It's illegal to kill somoene, but the pro-lifers want to stop the unborn/partially born humans from being killed. There is no cry for banning scalpols, or minerature sized brain vacuume machines (or whatever tools they use to kill the babies). And for all you tools who want to say that that making the murder of unborn babies illegal would cause the ones who were gonna do it anyhow to do it in an unsafe situation (back alley with a coathanger, etc)... GOOD. Let them take a gamble with their life. Heaven forbid we make them take a RISK for killing someone they dont want to be responsible for. Control, bah. Let them do what they want to themselves, if it doesn't effect anyone else. The baby they were responsible for creating IS SOMEONE ELSE'S life they're ending. Or do you think that since the radicals who flew the planes into the WTC on 9/11 saw non muslims as less than them, it was ok to go ahead and kill them? Oh... it's only YOUR view of what constitues a human life that counts, eh? Pro lifers are all about control, not saving unborn children, eh? Just like the gun grabbers? You're a bit flawed thinking that. It's pretty obvious that a fraction of a fraction of a percent of shots fired from a gun kill anyone. Ok... from that we can see guns aren't killing machines. Do you think the percentage of abortions that end in a dead baby are the same as gun shootings that end in death? If they/we were out to control your/everyone's lives, why would the ONE POINT they/we try to control be something as rare in a persons life as an abortion? How about coming up with a REAL argument, moron.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:28:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OmegaMan: [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BEING PERFORMED TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b]
View Quote
You are correct, that there is absolutely no need ever to perform a "partial birth abortion" because [b]there is no such medical procedure[/b]. It's a made-up term that no medical professional would ever use. The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation so broadly and ambigusouly, that once the bill is passed, it can be applied to almost any abortion. If the anti-gunners were as clever and deceitful at their anti-gun strategies, you wouldn't be allowed to own a water-pistol by now.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:30:50 PM EDT
WHAT IS TAKING THE HOUSE SO LONG TO PASS THIS BAN?? A bab on the murder of children should be priority A1. CRC
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:32:46 PM EDT
Any curtailment of any abortive procedure is fine by me. Don't want to create life? Don't f_ck. If you do, use birth control.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lostwildcat: THanks Zaphod,
View Quote
You're quite welcome. Think nothing of it. When I look at my 2- and 3-year-old daughters, their vibrance, their joy, their absolute innocence, I can't help but wonder what kind of monster would defend this "medical procedure". It awes me even more that the Lord hasn't made His displeasure known in no uncertain terms...
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:35 PM EDT
It's for the children, right? [rolleyes] So what exactly do senators and congressmen know more about than doctors again (in the medical profession, that is)? I certainly hope none of you ever have to lose your wife to prove this kind of legislation wrong...
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By OmegaMan: [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BEING PERFORMED TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b]
View Quote
You are correct, that there is absolutely no need ever to perform a "partial birth abortion" because [b]there is no such medical procedure[/b]. It's a made-up term that no medical professional would ever use.
View Quote
Let me clarify for the simpletons here: [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES SUCKING THE BRAIN OUT OF A FULL-TERM BABY DURING DELIVERY IN ORDER TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b] [slap]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation [red]so broadly and ambigusouly[/red], that once the bill is passed, [red]it can be applied to almost any abortion[/red].
View Quote
Citations please. Specify, what is so ambiguous that you can't comprehend in this bill?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:35:26 PM EDT
[rolleyes] All these arguments in support of this are purely subjective, emotional drivel rooted in the fantastic notion that some fantasy being creates life at the moment reproductive DNA is fused and starts to divide. Unscientific, emotionally driven arguments rooted in a purely subjective foundation.... hmmmm... sounds like interventionist anti-gunners to me.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:37:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: You are correct, that there is absolutely no need ever to perform a "partial birth abortion" because [b]there is no such medical procedure[/b]. It's a made-up term that no medical professional would ever use. The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation so broadly and ambigusouly, that once the bill is passed, it can be applied to almost any abortion.
View Quote
Oh, PLEASE! A baby is delivered up to the neck, a needle is used to puncture the skull and suck the brains out, and then the remains are delivered. Are you suggesting that THAT is "almost any abortion"? If so, then THANK YOU for making my point that abortion is MURDER! If not, then what you said is a lie. BTW, if it's not "partial birth abortion", what's the medical (i.e. - PC) term? Does it make the practice any less barbaric?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:42:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave45: It's for the children, right? [rolleyes] So what exactly do senators and congressmen know more about than doctors again (in the medical profession, that is)? I certainly hope none of you ever have to lose your wife to prove this kind of legislation wrong...
View Quote
Dave, As a few of us have already stated, when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy, an abortion may be a disgusting, hurtful, and sad necessity. I don't think most Pro-Lifers will disagree with that (even though some do. I think they're right on principle, but wrong on practicality. So be it.) However, the procedure in question has no medical use whatsoever that would save a woman's life that delivering the child via c-section wouldn't. THAT'S why we on the pro-life side are so adamant that this particular procedure be banned. And as for Senators and such knowing more than doctors, I would normally agree with you, except in this case, EVEN DOCTORS say this procedure is an unecessary barbarity.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:43:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: [rolleyes] All these arguments in support of this are purely subjective, emotional drivel rooted in the fantastic notion that some fantasy being creates life at the moment reproductive DNA is fused and starts to divide. Unscientific, emotionally driven arguments rooted in a purely subjective foundation.... hmmmm... sounds like interventionist anti-gunners to me.
View Quote
Then when, in your scientific and non-emotional opinion, does life "start"? When does a human being become a human being? Don't give me the legal response, as that is based on emotion is well. Please give me a SCIENTIFIC answer. [Zaphod sits back to here this one.....]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:48:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 1:37:13 PM EDT by A-nus]
Just another example of the gubment legislating morality. - Morally abortion is wrong! - But it is not an issue for the gubment to dictate. You have to be able to make the wrong decisions in life, you can't have a scenario where the Gubment creates a Nerf world for all to live in, in which all has been pre-thought and pre-decided for you, you are treading on a slippery slope, and letting your religious beliefs dictate laws, these laws effect all people, some of which may be not be religious. Personally I think abortion is a disgusting practice at any stage (absolutely reprehensible at the partial birth stage), but it is worse to have a group of douche bags determining what is best for you, just so they can get votes. Such a difficult issue to for me to think about, honestly I see the merit of both sides of the argument, why can't people be more resposable, I never got a girl pregnant, it wasn't that difficult a task to do.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:49:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By BenDover: [rolleyes] All these arguments in support of this are purely subjective, emotional drivel rooted in the fantastic notion that some fantasy being creates life at the moment reproductive DNA is fused and starts to divide. Unscientific, emotionally driven arguments rooted in a purely subjective foundation.... hmmmm... sounds like interventionist anti-gunners to me.
View Quote
Then when, in your scientific and non-emotional opinion, does life "start"? When does a human being become a human being? Don't give me the legal response, as that is based on emotion is well. Please give me a SCIENTIFIC answer. [Zaphod sits back to here this one.....]
View Quote
<----Gets popcorn and a soda, this ought to be good.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:53:42 PM EDT
Abortion in general is a terribly hot topic (like God, politics, guns) in which reasonable minds differ. If you can not see this, then you have already closed your mind to any sort of a debate. So there is no need to read the rest of my post or for me to respond to you. So if reasonable minds differ, why are we making a law? Because 1/2 the population is so convinced about their beliefs, that they insist that the other 1/2 do exactly as they say. This does not seem prudent. I'm of the belief that the government should make as few laws as possible, and I believe they should stay out of my life and choices as much as is feasible. Why is a law really necessary here? It would make more sense for people to try and change each other's minds through genuine debate, or to take care of the problem at it's core. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, then there would be no abortion. Now, let me make one thing clear. I am not saying abortion is right. If I know someone who is pregnant and wants to abort, then I would try and convince her to do otherwise. If someone were "truly" Christian, they would offer to take the child themselves. But I would draw the line at making a law forbidding my friend from making her choice. (I know most men at this point would argue she made her choice when she had sex, even though I am certain ALL of those men have had sex in the past without intending to father a child. But I guess that is a privilege that is only extended to men.) Laws limiting choice are dangerous. More dangerous are laws that push morality. Yes, some immoral behavior is illegal (Murder, Rape), but not all illegal behavior is immoral. (Speeding, Hunting out of Season). I guess then we should make it against the law to have sex, unless you are intending to impregnate your spouse. Hell, why stop there, lets make a law against swimming pools, I heard they kill more children than guns. Or what about a law against masturbation - yes there are some Christians that believe that sperm are children and by men masturbating you are committing mass abortion. But you say that argument is silly, because reasonable minds differ... Hmmmmm
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:54:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:05:23 PM EDT
Zaphod, I don't have the answer, nobody does, and I am confident enough in myslef to admit it. Right-leaning moralists BELIEVE they have the answer which is their stock answer to any and all 'unanswerable' questions. Which is perfectly acceptable for their own basis and intent to govern their own behavior. However, I don't believe they have all the answers because I am skeptical about the fantasy deity figure. Therefore, cramming a subjective legislation down my throat which is entirely constructed on the moral platform of a religious nature.... I GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT! See, that's what's wrong with most so-called Christians. Their evangelical nature gives them the ignorant, hyperactive ego, and consequently the belief that their moral solution is better than mine or any other moral solution. When it comes to themselves, they are indeed correct. Try to write it into a law for everyone? You're no better than an anti-gunner pushing nanny government on everyone. I emphatically hold the position that until it can be proven and presented in a court of law, there is not a single basis for legislation. Subjective legislation of morality is what the Taliban does.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:06:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:10:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By A-nus: Just another example of the gubment legislating morality. - Morally abortion is wrong! - But it is not an issue for the gubment to dictate. You have to be able to make the wrong decisions in life, you can't have a scenario where the Gubment creates a Nerf world for all to live in, in which all has been pre-thought and pre-decided for you, you are treading on a slippery slope, and letting your religious beliefs dictate laws, these laws effect all people, some of which may be not be religious. Personally I think abortion is a disgusting practice, but it is worse to have a group of douche bags determining what is best for you, just so they can get votes.
View Quote
Then why should the government interfere with someone who decides he's gonna kill a few pre-schoolers? After all, that's just as wrong, morally. The government shouldn't have any say on what doesn't (potentially) effect others. The baby the mother conceived is being effected by the proceedure, just as much as the 4 year old would be effected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that after the first trimester (maybe it's the second) it's past the point where life has (legally) begun, right?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:14:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: Funny, in 25 years of debating the abortion issue I've never had one pro-death person ask for scientific proof of "when life begins" as there are stacks 20 feet high of biology books that say life begins at conception. I've never seen a university biology text that doesn't state that. IBTL!
View Quote
Well, if you really want to chalk this one up to biology, why don't you trying banning abortions (if you can call them that?) that happen naturally - when an egg is fertalized but the menstrual cycle flushes it away - was that a life too? Did you know: One in six fertilized eggs naturally results in miscarriage, some of which are reabsorbed by the body and the woman is not aware she's been pregnant.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:15:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Zaphod, I don't have the answer, nobody does, and I am confident enough in myslef to admit it. Right-leaning moralists BELIEVE they have the answer which is their stock answer to any and all 'unanswerable' questions. Which is perfectly acceptable for their own basis and intent to govern their own behavior. However, I don't believe they have all the answers because I am skeptical about the fantasy deity figure. Therefore, cramming a subjective legislation down my throat which is entirely constructed on the moral platform of a religious nature.... I GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT! See, that's what's wrong with most so-called Christians. Their evangelical nature gives them the ignorant, hyperactive ego, and consequently the belief that their moral solution is better than mine or any other moral solution. When it comes to themselves, they are indeed correct. Try to write it into a law for everyone? You're no better than an anti-gunner pushing nanny government on everyone. I emphatically hold the position that until it can be proven and presented in a court of law, there is not a single basis for legislation. Subjective legislation of morality is what the Taliban does.
View Quote
OOOOOOOkay... NOBODY knows for sure whether this is murder or not. Let's then leave it up to the mother to decide whether she does the maybe-murder or not to her baby. If nobody knows, why would you prefer that we leave it to chance? Shouldn't your thinking be that you'd rather err in the side that doesn't have the chance of murdering someone? If you're shooting your rifle and you're unsure of your backstop... do you just decide that since nobody's sure whether you'd put a bullet thru someone's head, it's ok? After all... you might not actually kill someone. Lets hear the next flawed argument.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:15:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Zaphod, I don't have the answer, nobody does, and I am confident enough in myslef to admit it.
View Quote
Fine. But if that's the case, don't you think it is PRUDENT (forget morality and religion for now) to err on the side of CAUTION? Do you propose that police snipers fire through a closed door to hit the bad guy, or do you tell them to ACCURATELY identify their target BEFORE pulling the trigger? As such, using logic and a belief that human life is valuable and worth defending (again, not based on religion), how can abortion be defended if you're not sure if the "thing" inside the woman is actually a human yet?
Right-leaning moralists BELIEVE they have the answer which is their stock answer to any and all 'unanswerable' questions. Which is perfectly acceptable for their own basis and intent to govern their own behavior. However, I don't believe they have all the answers because I am skeptical about the fantasy deity figure. Therefore, cramming a subjective legislation down my throat which is entirely constructed on the moral platform of a religious nature.... I GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT! See, that's what's wrong with most so-called Christians. Their evangelical nature gives them the ignorant, hyperactive ego, and consequently the belief that their moral solution is better than mine or any other moral solution. When it comes to themselves, they are indeed correct. Try to write it into a law for everyone? You're no better than an anti-gunner pushing nanny government on everyone.
View Quote
You know, for someone who rails against Christians being too judgemental, you certainly are full of your own opinions toward THEM...
I emphatically hold the position that until it can be proven and presented in a court of law, there is not a single basis for legislation. Subjective legislation of morality is what the Taliban does.
View Quote
I should remind you that the Supreme Court hardly handed down a scientific disertation in Roe V. Wade. Their decision was as subjective as a decision can get. Remember that. Also, if you do not believe in a god, please explain what makes it immoral for a man to walk into his home, rape his 6-month-old son, gut his 12-year-old daughter, and tie up his wife so the dog can eat her alive? What the hell, HE thinks it's OK, and who says the courts or the government can legislate morality against HIS freedom to choose? Hmmmmm?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top