this is an interesting case here. And he should have been arrested for it as she was not of leagle age and he was. It is unsafe to bare a child so young. It is equally dangerous to the mother to abort it. And there will be long term health ramifications either way. There are always couples willing to care for and raise even drug affected babies. I say the babies rights need to be protected because the baby needs to be defended until he or she can defend themselves.
Do you support abortion as
- Thread starter Liebling:-)))
- Start date
- Status
this is an interesting case here. And he should have been arrested for it as she was not of leagle age and he was. It is unsafe to bare a child so young. It is equally dangerous to the mother to abort it. And there will be long term health ramifications either way. There are always couples willing to care for and raise even drug affected babies. I say the babies rights need to be protected because the baby needs to be defended until he or she can defend themselves.
It still boils down to who's rights get defended. If a person is visiting you and you ask him to leave. He falls down your stairs a breaks his back. The first response team arrives and inform you that they can stablize him for now but he must remain right where he is until the medivac helicopter arives. They have a body board and all the right equipment to safely transport him. But they can't arrive for an hour. You want him out of your home now. It is your private property in the first place and it is your right not to have him in your home. What would you do?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 323
I AGREE!!! Nobody has the right to tell me what I should do with my body just like I dont have any right to tell them what to do with their bodies.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Exactly. How dare they push their moral views down another's throat, and then claim to be defending the rights of anyone. Rights are a legal concept, not a moral one.
And I want to know exactly who appointed all the anti-abortionists the saviors of all the fetuses and the guardian of all women's wombs? They are free to do whatever their moral values dictate as long as it doesn't go past their own nose and interfere with the rights of others. "Don't agree with abortion? Then don't have one." But I'll be damned if you will dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my own body or what my morals should be.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 323
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Because your comparison of an adult who wants another adult out of their residence, and a woman's choice regarding her pregancy are two unrelated situations.
And you are free to practice your choices for yourself. But you are not free to impose them on another.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Yea and they want the rights to decide for themselves so...
They aren't satisfied with the right to make the choice for themselves. They want to make it for everyone else, too.:roll:
The situations are the same except for the age of the individuals.
So are you saying that the older a person is the more rights they should have?
And are you saying that it is a twenty minute trip down the birth canal that suddenly confers humanity on someone. You can not say that only a woman should have the choice to kill another human. She was not the only one involved in the procreation. Had the infant been cloned with no DNA coming from the father then you could use that argument.
Who appointed abolitionists to be defenders of the slaves?
After all a slave was considered to be the property of the master.
People were free not to own slaves if that was what they chose.
This all just seems like a "2/3rds of a person" compromise to me. And
that was the same logic Roe vs Wade was decided on. The fetus is "less than human". Don't agree with slavery? Then don't buy one! And slavery was leagle too! Well just because a thing is leagle doesn't make it right.
*
Source: NARAL voting record, NARAL Pro-Choice America Jan 1, 2008
Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
And the bolded, no doubt is why he voted against it. Again, the law does not define the fetus as a person. If you choose to do so based on your own moral stance, then that is your choice, but you cannot make that choice for others. Legally, a fetus has not reached viability, and viability is the medical criteria for probable survival outside the womb.
You are entitled to disagree with these definitions, and to apply another definition to yourself. You cannot, however, dictate to any other woman which definition she accepts, nor can you dictate to her your morality. If you want freedom to choose for yourself, and freedom to decide for yourself the moral standards you wish to live by, you MUST give that right to everyone else. To presume that you are the keeper of womanhood, and the guardian of every woman's womb, is unbelievably arrogant and self righteous.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
No they are not the same, either legally or logically. But it is vey typical that the anti-choice crowd continually brings in fallicious arguments to distort the picture.
I am saying that, under the law, a fetus in the womb has not achieved personhood. If you believe it has, then that is your choice, and it is no doubt based on your particular religious beliefs. However, you have no roight to force your particular religious beliefs on another, either. If the law, and science is the view another woman chooses to adhere to, then that is her choice, and to believe that you have any right to interfere with her personal choice on any level is nothing more than judgemental self righteousness.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Again, a totally fallicious argument. If you want to argue your points, stick to the topic at hand. No one forced a woman to carry a slave in her womb for 9 months simply because their personal belief was that they had some self ordained right to dictate the values and beliefs of another.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 10,305
- Reaction score
- 0
It's wrong to take a fetus' life by killing. You perfectly knew well that it is wrong to kill a fetus. You throw that " love " away when a life is giving. It is such a shame to see some mothers not caring for a fetus in despite of having an abortion just, because of rape and life threatening are the reasons a mother should remove a fetus from its mother's womb. I think it is just a lame with no caring for. It's a cold heart without thinking of giving up a child for an adoption. It is healthy for a mother not to experience such a trauma or some problem with uterus. That abortion with vacuum thing could cause uterus some serious problems if, a mother should consider to have a baby again in the near future, depending on how many times she aborts.
I still very much opposed abortion, because of its unhealthy to mother's womb. Let alone a destiny or fate take its course. Accept the consequences.
I still very much opposed abortion, because of its unhealthy to mother's womb. Let alone a destiny or fate take its course. Accept the consequences.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
In your opinion its wrong. That is the whole point. Wrong is a moral judgement, and you cannot force another to comply with your moral stance. Legally, abortion is not wrong. Therefore, whether to have one is an individual decision, and each individual has the right to choose according to their own beliefs. No one is trying to change your mind about it. If you don't agree with abortion, then don't have one. You are perfectly free to believe what you will about abortion, and make your decisions based on that. But guess what? Everyone else is entitled to the same thing. You have the freedom to decide for yourself, and every other woman has the right to that same freedom.
dead money
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,495
- Reaction score
- 0
wouldnt be the first time.
Personally im glad abortions legal. America is founded on being able to make a choice and sticking with that choice with no reprecussions. If a woman doesnt want to have a baby, then so be it. If i was asked what a pregnant woman should do, i would tell her honestly to just go ahead and have it, give it up for adoption but if she wanted an abortion, that would be her choice and i would respect it. People who feel they have to intervene and tell others what they should do based on their own beliefs is ludicrous.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2003
- Messages
- 7,146
- Reaction score
- 66
Mod's Note:
Some of the abortion posts moved to here were from http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/56185-govt-alaska-sarah-palin-vice-president-mccain-7.html
Some of the abortion posts moved to here were from http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/56185-govt-alaska-sarah-palin-vice-president-mccain-7.html
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,879
- Reaction score
- 7
Ugh! I hate the "if you don't like (something), don't have one" crap...
If you don't like slaves, don't have one.
If you don't like cats, don't have one.
If you don't like killings, don't have one.
If you don't like fur coats, don't have one.
If you don't like animal testing potions, don't have one.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one.
Basically, you will change their minds and go like this:
"Shut up! I know what I am doing (that whatever I want); I don't care what happen to others, I will know what I do; Oh, wait, I'd changed my mind; blah blah..."
Oh wait... I forget that *some* pro-choicers are just considered those all bastard humans are just trashy. :roll:
Typical...
If you don't like slaves, don't have one.
If you don't like cats, don't have one.
If you don't like killings, don't have one.
If you don't like fur coats, don't have one.
If you don't like animal testing potions, don't have one.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one.
Basically, you will change their minds and go like this:
"Shut up! I know what I am doing (that whatever I want); I don't care what happen to others, I will know what I do; Oh, wait, I'd changed my mind; blah blah..."
Oh wait... I forget that *some* pro-choicers are just considered those all bastard humans are just trashy. :roll:
Typical...
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 44,482
- Reaction score
- 448
*Scratch my head*
Look at word, "Pro-choice", that means we are give woman's choice to abort the fetus or newborn, it doesn't means we are push you into abortion, in my opinion, for healthy woman who is pregnant so accidently or unwanted to keep child then need be give for adoption instead of abortion, abortion is good for rape, life threaten and any health issue that related to pregnancy, such as excessive vomit.
There's some democrat who against on abortion, you blamed for liberal then you means all liberal are doing like that, that's quietly not true, people could goes on way for personal, I'm not twist your or other member's decision but I was just POINT about issue with varies of women and affect of overturn on Roe v. Wade, that doesn't means I'm push you or others to favor into but would make to think so twice.
I had aunt that who raped by man in 1992 and she got pregnant then went aborted at early term, even she don't want any gene that pass on child by rapist or health issue in future child, such as AIDS or HIV.
Overturn on Roe v. Wade would be result in skyrocket of illegal abortion that compared to 60's, that what I learned from my dad about alot of illegal abortion were performed in prior to 1973, also there's new pills that could kill fetus, recently technology to make stop unwanted fetus/newborn in other countries when abortion isn't offered, I had seen alot of illegal abortion in other countries when they don't have legal abortion offered, I don't want happen like that in USA but pills is still offered as illegal drug, I rather to keep Roe v. Wade. That's compare about what happen if you ban on own of gun then crime will skyrocket, that it.
Call abortion an murder is illogical, IMO.
If you can't stand in debate then go somewhere that's peace and not hard to ignore this section.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,879
- Reaction score
- 7
Stupid computer kicked me out and I only post one post on here.
Anyway, he's right, I am a liberal pro-life here. So, don't blame me for that. Besides, no one force you to go to the discussions and debates if you are not able to. If you couldn't stand this, just leave here.
*speak of general*
Funny. In 1970's, they didn't consider third term of prenancy as a person (Gainna Jessen is an simple example). Now, each unborn child is a such smaller and survived yet... they still considered them as a non person...
Well... abandonment... if a mother abandons and disowns you completely, you are not a person. Just like YOUR mother aborts you as she disowns you, therefore you are not a person because a female simply don't want you. If you are just a rapist's child, she HATES YOU because she don't consider YOU are hers.
She wants a child = child, personhood
She owns a child = child, personhood
She don't want a child = child, non-personhood
She disowns a child = child, non-personhood
Abandoment and abortion are just whole of nonsense comments, imo. =/
Bah, I gotta do stuffbefore I leave.
- Status