God help us

Les'Bride · 11-23-2007, 06:56 PM

"Yes, and the other part of the point is that no person, including any woman, has the right to kill another person without justification or excuse. (justified killing would not be illegal while excused killing is illegal but understandable under the circumstances)" WITHOUT justification OR excuse..I'm sorry, but this is about as logical as the legal defense.."just needed killin'" NO ONE has a right to kill ANYTHING, sorry. WHAT right have you, male OR female to kill?? THE ARGUEMENT of pro-choice is QUITE simple..its a CHOICE. period. and it should lie with the woman. ANY decent, moralily inclined female isn't going to kill her child, just toughen up and f*cking RAISE IT! BUT...damnit. NO ONE on THIS Earth is going to TELL ME what to do with MY body. THAT is the point I was making. THIS point, LIKE so many others, hits a chord within people and they put their OWN twists on things. IS abortion WRONG, OF COURSE it is. BUT, IS it RIGHT to impose YOUR will on someone else?? Give me a BREAK..oppress much?? OK that is a bit extreme, but, this discussion is too. IF you allow the government to tell you you don't have final say with what happens with your body..what does that open the door to?? What other rights will you want people to set aside, pertaining to their own bodies?? HOW about a living will?? Or some religions right NOT to have surgery/blood infusions, etc..?

ccheese · 11-23-2007, 09:22 PM

Well said, Becca. It's your body, and no one; no government, no institution,
and no organization should be able to tell you you can or cannot do what you
want to, with your body.

Now.... look on the other side of this. Lets suppose Roe V Wade is "killed" by
Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court. What do you think will happen when
some 17 year old girl gets pregnant. The abortion mills will flourish, but not in
the security of a hospital. They will be in the back rooms, coat hangers and
scissors to do the job an MD is trained for. How many young girls will bleed
to death from botched abortions ?

Who pays That price ?

Charles

Jank · 11-23-2007, 11:19 PM

"IF you allow the government to tell you you don't have final say with what happens with your body..what does that open the door to?? What other rights will you want people to set aside, pertaining to their own bodies?? HOW about a living will?? Or some religions right NOT to have surgery/blood infusions, etc.."

Uh ... well ...I guess it opens the door to the government fulfilling its most basic of all duties which is to defend people from being killed. Please see the point I already made on that. I'm not sure how causing the government to fulfill its most basic of duties (which everyone agrees with, even you) necessarily leads to the government assuming a host of other duties that are not related to any basic duty on its part. It sound like you subscribe to the idea that if we allow the government to tell us how fast we can drive, the next stop is the gulag for those who spit on the sidewalk.

"THE ARGUEMENT of pro-choice is QUITE simple..its a CHOICE. period."

Yes, and as I have already pointed out, it has led to some bizarre results. Again, see the examples I have provided. Do you really have no thoughts on them? The fact that these bizarre results have resulted is evidence that there is something very wrong with that position. (That and the fact that millions of babies have been exterminated and discarded as trash.)

"NO ONE has a right to kill ANYTHING, sorry."

This is patently false. I trust you don't need me to actually prove it for you.

"NO ONE on THIS Earth is going to TELL ME what to do with MY body."

Again, you are casting this thing in a ridiculous fashion that is intellectually void and morally bankrupt. It is not about telling you what to do with your body. It is about intervening to stop murder and where your interests in comfort, health and happiness are in conflict with the most basic right of life itself, your interests must necessarily give way.

Tell me. Do you support a woman at 8-1/2 months of pregnancy deciding that its her body, her choice and that she wants to terminate the pregnancy and remove the offending mass of tissue? Now why is that?

ccheese, your point made me chuckle.

"How many young girls will bleed
to death from botched abortions ?

Who pays That price ?"

And I see that you are quite comfortable with the payment of the price of literally millions of babies having been killed since Roe v. Wade. Am I to be shamed for not willing to pay the price you suggest? Please. I notice that you and Les' Bride have failed to address any of the bizarre outcomes that have flowed from the pro-choice camp's tenets that masquerade as reason.

Anyway, I do not expect to change any minds on this. I just offer something to think about. I would appreciate some thoughts on the points I raised.

That and maybe a little show of humanity in the form of a statement from you both that the widespread use of abortion as just another form of birth control over the last several decades is horrible and worthy of shame and condemnation as opposed to a show of feminist force.

Matt308 · 11-23-2007, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les'Bride

"THE ARGUEMENT of pro-choice is QUITE simple..its a CHOICE. period. and it should lie with the woman.

Here is where I find this position intolerable. A man has no say in the decision, but all the responsibility in the decision's repercussions. This to me is the flaw of the argument "FOR". You can't have it both ways. You want choice, then live with the choice. But the choice MUST be mutual between mother and father. Tough decisions in light of Roe vs Wade.

And we all know why the choice cannot include the father. Because the choice would impose physical, mental, fiscal, and moral responsibilities that cannot EVER be resolved by the government, nor tolerated by a vulnerable pregnant woman. There is no easy answer here people. And since there is no easy answer, abortion should not be condoned by the our government.

With few trying exceptions, you stick it in... you have made a life decision and must live with the consequences. Killing your child is too easy and perhaps that thought might keep some from making decisions that put them in a position of being morally judged.

Sorry, Becca. Can't agree with you on this one. But I still like your Holloween costume.

Les'Bride · 11-24-2007, 09:14 AM

uhh..no. Jank, though I enjoy, and chuckle at your condensation this morning. FIRSTLY, "Tell me. Do you support a woman at 8-1/2 months of pregnancy deciding that its her body, her choice and that she wants to terminate the pregnancy and remove the offending mass of tissue? Now why is that?" THIS is just asinine.

"Uh ... well ...I guess it opens the door to the government fulfilling its most basic of all duties which is to defend people from being killed." I'm sorry, is this alleged list of Gov't basics sitting around your home somewhere...OH do you mean The Constitution?? **and as a side note..WAKE UP the Government kills people EVERYDAY** PLEASE cut and paste where the "defend people from getting killed" basic law is..and I'll shut up. I'll just go in the other room and vent off on Les. Poor guy.

As for the no one has a RIGHT to kill anything...AS read. Would you like to cut and paste the arena where you are pulling that ANYONE covers the "right" to kill anything?? There IS the right to bear arms..which I believe wholeheartedly in. Defense is natural. BUT a right.?? .WOULD you consider the right to kill maybe a CHOICE? In the nature of war..it is defense. A nessessity. I'm not stating that Im a tree-hugging hippy, im a Texan FFS.

and NO to THIS "That and maybe a little show of humanity in the form of a statement from you both that the widespread use of abortion as just another form of birth control over the last several decades is horrible and worthy of shame and condemnation as opposed to a show of feminist force."

This statement was sad and well, just sad. I HAVE NEVER stated that I felt that abortion is anything of the sort. I dont even feel it is part of any reasonable scenario, IMO. BUT, that is ME and MY CHOICE. I am HARDLY a feminist. GMAB!

Charles has VERY valid points that you choose to just brush off..How many young girls will bleed
to death from botched abortions ?

Who pays That price ?"

This is NOT BS this is History. To ask if anyone is "comfortable" with the death of millions of babies is just ludicrous.

and Matt...and unfortunately not alot of sperm donors even give a rats ass that they have procreated. I think that the dad should care and have a say. BE involved.

It would have to be the Nursie outfit from last year, this year sucked. Thanks.

mkloby · 11-24-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccheese

Well said, Becca. It's your body, and no one; no government, no institution,
and no organization should be able to tell you you can or cannot do what you
want to, with your body.

Now.... look on the other side of this. Lets suppose Roe V Wade is "killed" by
Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court. What do you think will happen when
some 17 year old girl gets pregnant. The abortion mills will flourish, but not in
the security of a hospital. They will be in the back rooms, coat hangers and
scissors to do the job an MD is trained for. How many young girls will bleed
to death from botched abortions ?

Who pays That price ?

Charles

While I think this argument will go nowhere - as it always does. Consider this Charles:

Aside from the fact that there is another life and body in the abortion equation besides the mother - The government already controls what you can do with your body in various ways. That was the same argument used by those in favor of completely legal drugs. It's your body after all, isnt it? Think of all the governing laws relating to alcohol, and even tobacco. Fact of the matter is that government by essence imposes limitations and restrictions upon absolute freedom. Various forms of government have various lines drawn in the sand. Whether or not you want the US to turn into Holland is another matter. There are laws on the books. By that line of reasoning, you should support the repeal of all such laws. That's just one example.

I am ok with government restriction upon personal freedoms. Probably more so than others being a devout Catholic. Restrictions, however, must be based upon moral grounds. That is where we look towards religion. Does that make me a theocrat - you can call it what you want.

Off topic - That is a major problem as nations become less and less homogenous. The media pumps up diversity, but there are a massive amount of problems associated with it, especially as those with extremely different values and beliefs appear. Democracy is having a difficult time with this one.

mkloby · 11-24-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les'Bride

Charles has VERY valid points that you choose to just brush off..How many young girls will bleed
to death from botched abortions ?

Who pays That price ?"

This is akin to blaming the government for those that die from illegal drugs laden with other chemicals that kill the users. Or blame the government for people being killed in banned street racing. Come on now... But anyway, Yes - it surely will happen. The government cannot stop illegal activity by decree.

In case anybody wondered the statistics, instead of blind rhetoric - the maniacal lobby for abortion rights in Eire estimates that there are 70,000 deaths per year of women having their babies murdered out of nearly 20,000,000 murders committed. That equates to .35%

So - if US abortion rates stayed consisten at approximately 1.5 mil per year (which it would not - it would vastly decrease), that would equate to 5,250 deaths.

Matt308 · 11-24-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les'Bride

and Matt...and unfortunately not alot of sperm donors even give a rats ass that they have procreated. I think that the dad should care and have a say. BE involved.

It would have to be the Nursie outfit from last year, this year sucked. Thanks.

Yes it was the "Nursie" outfit.

And with that, I will abstain from further discussion on this topic. As mkloby noted, it will serve no purpose other than alienating forum friends.

Jank · 11-24-2007, 02:06 PM

On the issue of supporting a woman who is 8-1/2 months pregnant exercising her "choice," is your answer that it is "asinine" with a side order of "yes" or "no"? What if my response to your assertion that it is a woman's choice was, "THIS is just asinine"? Way to dodge the question!

You have still failed to address any of the examples of the ludicrous outcomes I offered in my earlier post.

As to your request that I show you where the "defend people from getting killed" basic law is, I never said it was a law. Again, I said, "At a bare minimum, the state exists to safeguard its citizens from attack both from abroad (an act of war) and from within (a criminal act)." I am sorry but I am not here to teach you political theory 101. I suggest you read up on Locke, Hume (among others) and the Federalist Papers on the role of government.

I confess that I am confused as to your point about the right to kill. You said, "NO ONE has a right to kill ANYTHING, sorry." Again, that is false. When you kill in self defense, that is a "justified killing" that emanates from the God given right to self defense which is the predicate for the Second Amendment. If someone drugs you and you fall asleep while driving and kill someone, that is an "excused killing" because it is not justified but you are not held to account. So, yes, there are circumstances where people have the right to kill others and other circumstances where people are excused from killing others. You will note that both scenarios involve the killing of others as opposed to a mass of tissue.

"I'm not stating that Im a tree-hugging hippy, im a Texan FFS." Never said you were. And for the record, some of the biggest liberal pieces of crap reside right there in Austin.

"Charles has VERY valid points that you choose to just brush off..How many young girls will bleed
to death from botched abortions?"

Did I brush it off? I thought my response was implied. I said, "Am I to be shamed for not willing to pay the price you suggest? Please." Let me be clearer for you. I am about as concerned as I am about teens getting killed in drunk driving accidents. I don't lose sleep over it at night. My concern about young women who die as suggested can be found in my support of harsh criminal penalties against those who perform such procedures. Do you support harsh criminal penalties for those who perform abortions aka killing babies?

The liberals and feminists have made great strides in constructing the consequence free nation where government reduces the cost of personally irresponsible behavior either through offering programs that subsidize and bail people out or through the shirking of its most basic of duties like protecting people from murder (is this starting to sink in? I didn't think so.).

ccheese · 11-24-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

And with that, I will abstain from further discussion on this topic. As mkloby noted, it will serve no purpose other than alienating forum friends.

Me too. The friends I have made here mean more to me that trying to make
a point on this subject. The debate will never end....

Charles

Les'Bride · 11-24-2007, 03:29 PM

The question being posed AT ALL was the asinine part of that equation. OF COURSE NOT, if that needs to be stated. Do you know the cut-off time, during gestation, where it is NO LONGER a choice?? Might want to go check.

BASICALLY..I will stand by my particular Choice. TY. Will vote accordingly, or not..another lovely choice I have AS an American. I do NOT now or ever think that this decision should be in the hands of the Government. I am open to it being a man/woman decision. It lies as a morality issue. I also CHOOSE not to argue this issue.

SO, nah..I think I'll pass on the Politcal theory 101 BS, thanks anyway.

mkloby · 11-24-2007, 03:50 PM

hey guys - it could've ended worse! That was civil for an abortion debate!

renrich · 11-24-2007, 03:53 PM

Jank, I concur with your arguments. I also understand a woman who says that the government has no right to tell her what she can do with Her body. Where the disconnect is for me is that in the case of abortion we are talking about not just the mother's body but also a child's body and I believe the mother should do all in her power to safeguard that child. That doesn't to me allow abortion because the mother does not want the child. That is a slippery slope to immorality. If the pro choice advocate is going to take the position that the fetus is not a child then I say please tell me when the fetus becomes a child, a person. At the moment of birth? What about premature birth? By the way, Austin is full of liberals, as well as some of the other urban areas in Texas. I do believe the woman has a choice. She can choose to get pregnant or not. That is the old fashioned way.

Njaco · 11-24-2007, 05:29 PM

It seems to me that this discussion is about well-off people discussing what disadvantaged people should do. Pro-life / Pro-choice? How about a decent life? Its one thing to have a baby but someone has to raise and all too often those that this argument affect really couldn't give 2 sh*ts.

Those on welfare procreate sometimes so that they can live off the system. Its gotten so bad here in Jersey a few years ago the State passed a law against the practice.

And if Pro-lifers were such hardcore in their belief how about submitting a list of their members to Adoption Agencies so they have a wealth of homes to send these babies to.

The subject of killing is bogus. Just an excuse. Its not ok to kill a baby but ok to let the mother die in an illegal, back alley abortion or better yet...lets blow up a clinic! Murder is not justification for murder. And I don't see any solution from Pro-lifers on this except to ban it. Only in a perfect world.

(crawling back under rock)

mkloby · 11-25-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Njaco

It seems to me that this discussion is about well-off people discussing what disadvantaged people should do. Pro-life / Pro-choice? How about a decent life? Its one thing to have a baby but someone has to raise and all too often those that this argument affect really couldn't give 2 sh*ts.

Those on welfare procreate sometimes so that they can live off the system. Its gotten so bad here in Jersey a few years ago the State passed a law against the practice.

And if Pro-lifers were such hardcore in their belief how about submitting a list of their members to Adoption Agencies so they have a wealth of homes to send these babies to.

The subject of killing is bogus. Just an excuse. Its not ok to kill a baby but ok to let the mother die in an illegal, back alley abortion or better yet...lets blow up a clinic! Murder is not justification for murder. And I don't see any solution from Pro-lifers on this except to ban it. Only in a perfect world.

(crawling back under rock)

This is the last I'm going to say.

My uncle attempted to adopt a child in the early 90s, but they basically got passed over for a more qualified couple. I don't know if it is still as difficult, but from what I understand there are far more couples willing to adopt than there are babies to be adopted.

Nobody promoted mothers dying in illegal abortions. The responsibility of that mother dying being that of the gov't is akin to blaming the gov't for those that kill themselves using illicit drugs. Again - makes no sense.

Abortion clinic bombers??? Come on now.