Do you support abortion as

Do you support abortion as

  • a legal?

    Votes: 39 63.9%

  • an illegal?

    Votes: 22 36.1%
  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
fredfam1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Laws did not do anything for her or protect her except of the father. Are you talking about people who want to adopt her baby but this case I am talking about father's family want to raise the baby against her wishes. Well she is getting married and is pregnant now this time she keeps her child with a man she is planning to be married and she is no longer on drugs. She is happy. That is all I want for her to have that freedom of choice not pressure or forced to keep it against her will.
 
fredfam1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
If he is a violent man then I would need a police to keep eye on him while he is at my property. It happened to us once, this time a young teenager who tried to stole bike from our front yard and my husband grabbed him and forced him to come in our home till police arrive at our house and took care of him and release him to his parents.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Not because I have some self oredained right to dictate the values and beliefs of another. Because our constitution guarentees every one LIFE, liberty and.... You are not allowed to take away someones life simply because yours will be disrupted for 9 months. And this does relate to the topic. It focuses on the fact that Obama would support taking the babys life and giving the adult female more rights than the infant. That is the real argument here. Do we as a culture atribute one class of people to have more rights than another. If you allow that for infants, the next step will be the disabled, because their care can interfere with a persons rights not to have to care for them. I'm not sure if McCain will support prolife or not. But I know Obama won't based on his voting record.
 
jazzy said:
Laws did not do anything for her or protect her except of the father. Are you talking about people who want to adopt her baby but this case I am talking about father's family want to raise the baby against her wishes. Well she is getting married and is pregnant now this time she keeps her child with a man she is planning to be married and she is no longer on drugs. She is happy. That is all I want for her to have that freedom of choice not pressure or forced to keep it against her will.
Click to expand...

Good points, jazzy. You summed it up nicely. No one, NO ONE, should be forced carry a pregnancy to term, especially one that results from traumatic and illegal circumstances, and then surrender the child for adoption. That is a decision only one person can make, and that is the one who has the womb the fetus is carried in.

Thank God we have laws that protect us from the fantacism of others.
 
jazzy said:
If he is a violent man then I would need a police to keep eye on him while he is at my property. It happened to us once, this time a young teenager who tried to stole bike from our front yard and my husband grabbed him and forced him to come in our home till police arrive at our house and took care of him and release him to his parents.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a violent man with a broken back is not much danger to anyone. Did the parents ever make this boy appologize to you? I hope so.
 
Maria said:
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.
Click to expand...
To you saving a woman's life mean nothing, is that what your trying to sayin? I had a friend who had aborted because she was not suppose to be pregnant at all and she knew if she carry it and she would die from being pregnant maybe at 5 months pregnant and the fetsus would be dead too. She had very serious eplisey and she needs to be watch 24 hours a day for rest of her life. Otherwise she would fell down and had bad seizure then she would need someone to held her tongue so she would not choked on her own. Anyway she died few years later after she had an abort. It does not make any sense if people who are against her to have an abort and kill her at the same time, it made those people murderers too.
 
oh not again....... this abortion debate is as bad as religion debate. it's never going to be agreed upon by both parties
 
fredfam1 said:
Yes, but a violent man with a broken back is not much danger to anyone. Did the parents ever make this boy appologize to you? I hope so.
Click to expand...
Yes they apologed to us, he was a trouble young boy then and hopefully he outgrow by now. How do u know if a violent man with broke back does not do any danger to anyone? Depend on how bad his back broke, if he is a paralyzed then I feel bad for him but if he just happen have a broke back and still can walk then never know what will happen next. It is really depend on each sitution, for one myself I do not believe in gun.
 
jillio said:
Good points, jazzy. You summed it up nicely. No one, NO ONE, should be forced carry a pregnancy to term, especially one that results from traumatic and illegal circumstances, and then surrender the child for adoption. That is a decision only one person can make, and that is the one who has the womb the fetus is carried in.

Thank God we have laws that protect us from the fantacism of others.
Click to expand...

That is funny Jillio. I would consider your position to be fanatical, since you would deprive the child of their rights to live. The babies need protection and again if the courts say a black person is not a whole person and there for do not have rights as allowed by our constitution, as they did long ago, it still didn't make it right even if it was legal. Just because the courts say babies are not human until they take their first breath of air, doesn't make it right even if it too is legal. I am trying to uphold the values of the constitution. While you are upholding the rights of one class of people over another. Being female and able to carry a child inside your body shouldn't confer special privilages or rights over others. Especially those who are unable to defend them selves.
 
jiro123 said:
oh not again....... this abortion debate is as bad as religion debate. it's never going to be agreed upon by both parties
Click to expand...
Yes I know, this time is all about who is running our country, Mc Cain/Palin or Obama/Biden. People will vote for Mc Cain/Palin because of pro-lifers while others will vote Obama/Biden for pro-choicers but for me I will vote for Obama/Biden because I do not agree with Mc Cain and Palin. What is scary me more that Palin may try to take freedom of speech away from us especially books from Library.
 
fredfam1 said:
Wrong. Not because I have some self oredained right to dictate the values and beliefs of another. Because our constitution guarentees every one LIFE, liberty and.... You are not allowed to take away someones life simply because yours will be disrupted for 9 months. And this does relate to the topic. It focuses on the fact that Obama would support taking the babys life and giving the adult female more rights than the infant. That is the real argument here. Do we as a culture atribute one class of people to have more rights than another. If you allow that for infants, the next step will be the disabled, because their care can interfere with a persons rights not to have to care for them. I'm not sure if McCain will support prolife or not. But I know Obama won't based on his voting record.
Click to expand...

To finish your sentence, it ends with "and the pursuit of happiness." For some, that means not carrying a pregnancy to term. Roe v Wade in no way violates the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It simply defines the point of life as beginning at the point of viability.

No one is "taking away life" by performing an elective abortion prior to the point of viability. It is not an independent life. It is the potential for independent life. If an embryo is miscarried in the first trimester, it doesn't survive. Therefore, it was not life, it was the potential. A potential that was not realized, for various reasons.

A fetus is not an infant. As someone who claims to have gone through R.N training, you really should know your terminology better. You are arguing a moral point from an emotional perspective. The fact of the matter is, your arguments, for that reason alone, are fallicious and self serving.
 
fredfam1 said:
That is funny Jillio. I would consider your position to be fanatical, since you would deprive the child of their rights to live. The babies need protection and again if the courts say a black person is not a whole person and there for do not have rights as allowed by our constitution, as they did long ago, it still didn't make it right even if it was legal. Just because the courts say babies are not human until they take their first breath of air, doesn't make it right even if it too is legal. I am trying to uphold the values of the constitution. While you are upholding the rights of one class of people over another. Being female and able to carry a child inside your body shouldn't confer special privilages or rights over others. Especially those who are unable to defend them selves.
Click to expand...
Not when women and girls are being raped against their will by rapists. oh well, it goes circle.
 
fredfam1 said:
That is funny Jillio. I would consider your position to be fanatical, since you would deprive the child of their rights to live. The babies need protection and again if the courts say a black person is not a whole person and there for do not have rights as allowed by our constitution, as they did long ago, it still didn't make it right even if it was legal. Just because the courts say babies are not human until they take their first breath of air, doesn't make it right even if it too is legal. I am trying to uphold the values of the constitution. While you are upholding the rights of one class of people over another. Being female and able to carry a child inside your body shouldn't confer special privilages or rights over others. Especially those who are unable to defend them selves.
Click to expand...

I'm depriving children of nothing. As soon as a first trimester embryo can be shown to survive as an independent life, and thus actually be a child, you might have an argument. As it stands, you don't.

You seek to take away. I seek to maintain the right to choose. And you might want to think about defending a few of those women who have become pregnant through rape and incest. They have already been victimized by those who refused to allow them a choice over what happens to their own bodies. You would compound that by further restricting their choice and victimize them yet again. You would be much more credible if you focused on HUMAN rights instead of limiting your rantings to FETAL rights.
 
jazzy said:
Yes they apologed to us, he was a trouble young boy then and hopefully he outgrow by now. How do u know if a violent man with broke back does not do any danger to anyone? Depend on how bad his back broke, if he is a paralyzed then I feel bad for him but if he just happen have a broke back and still can walk then never know what will happen next. It is really depend on each sitution, for one myself I do not believe in gun.
Click to expand...

Ok, you do not believe in guns. Assuming you are being attacked and your life is in danger, (and your hubby is not home) how would you defend yourself?
I understand your belief, I am just curious as to weather you have considered this aspect. Do you have a dog in the house like me? And one on a run outside?
And I also have beware of dog signs. Well I also have a 22 at home as well.
 
jazzy said:
Yes I know, this time is all about who is running our country, Mc Cain/Palin or Obama/Biden. People will vote for Mc Cain/Palin because of pro-lifers while others will vote Obama/Biden for pro-choicers but for me I will vote for Obama/Biden because I do not agree with Mc Cain and Palin. What is scary me more that Palin may try to take freedom of speech away from us especially books from Library.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Right to choice re: preganancy and birth is only one of the rights they will strip fromthe American public. If anyone is naive enough to vote for them based on the one issue of abortion, and they should, by some stroke of pure magic, end up in the White House, all those who cast a vote will soon be complaining about the loss of their right to choose something as simple as which book they want to read, or how the philosophy they teach their children.
 
fredfam1 said:
Ok, you do not believe in guns. Assuming you are being attacked and your life is in danger, (and your hubby is not home) how would you defend yourself?
I understand your belief, I am just curious as to weather you have considered this aspect. Do you have a dog in the house like me? And one on a run outside?
And I also have beware of dog signs. Well I also have a 22 at home as well.
Click to expand...

You sound paranoid. You are not in so much danger to need all you have.
 
jillio said:
I'm depriving children of nothing. As soon as a first trimester embryo can be shown to survive as an independent life, and thus actually be a child, you might have an argument. As it stands, you don't.

You seek to take away. I seek to maintain the right to choose. And you might want to think about defending a few of those women who have become pregnant through rape and incest. They have already been victimized by those who refused to allow them a choice over what happens to their own bodies. You would compound that by further restricting their choice and victimize them yet again. You would be much more credible if you focused on HUMAN rights instead of limiting your rantings to FETAL rights.
Click to expand...

Why are you classifying my "disscussion" as rantings? I have never been anything except polite. I have never flamed anyone. Yet you classify my opinion as rantings. You seem just as passionate about your position as I do mine. I wonder if you consider yourself a ranter?:hmm:
 
jiro123 said:
oh not again....... this abortion debate is as bad as religion debate. it's never going to be agreed upon by both parties
Click to expand...

Only because one side will never be satisfied until they force all to live by the moral standards they have chosen. It was settled long ago through Roe V. Wade. If one disagrees with abortion, one does not have to have one. I certainly respect the right of a woman to choose not to have an abortion. By the same token, I respect the right of a woman to choose, as well. That is the only reasonable approach. Everyone has a choice, and everyone has the freedom to act on that choice as their moral and religious beliefs dictate. No one has the right to force anyone to live under the standards they have chosen for themselves. If you want freedom, you must grant the same freedom to others. Take mine away, and you loose yours. The anti-choice faction are certainly not willing to give up their freedom or their rights.
 
fredfam1 said:
Why are you classifying my "disscussion" as rantings? I have never been anything except polite. I have never flamed anyone. Yet you classify my opinion as rantings. You seem just as passionate about your position as I do mine. I wonder if you consider yourself a ranter?:hmm:
Click to expand...

Yes, I am perfectly capable of ranting, as are we all. I classified these particular posts as ranting because they are fallicious and full of misinformation regarding the reality of the situation. You load them with emotionally charged language that is incorrect in its application under law and medicine. All for the purpose of denying women a choice that you demand for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top