Reply With QuoteSo let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?
Oh, and for the record, I am against abortion but I do not think that the government should forbid it. That's not going to work anyway. And indeed in these cases, should we then start to judge if someone was raped or not and thus can get an abortion? That would be horrible.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
So let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
I believe his position is that he personally is against abortion, and would not get one, but he is not willing to force that belief on someone else.Originally Posted by Hauldren Collider
also known as "Pro Choice, not Pro Abortion"
Plomp doesn't want to force his own personal beliefs on other people who believe differently.
And a fetus cannot ever be a child anyway, if the fetus is aborted.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
We should beat Akin with cheese sticks until he leaves politics altogether.
Anyway, I found this article and wanted to share it here when I saw you posted the video clip above.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
Yes, that would be my objection to abortion.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
You forgot to relogin as Ben.
Graffiti in a public toilet
Do not require skill or wit
Among the **** we all are poets
Among the poets we are ****.
I don't see how he is wrong.
JM
(Of course, doesn't excuse Akin's craziness and might mean that many of those who think similarly to me do so for the wrong reasons.)
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
The whole rape/incest thing is a canard. The real question has always been about whether unborn babies count as people or not. If you think that they do, then that should be true regardless of how or with whom the baby was conceived.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
I've seen two broad justifications for an "abortion is permissible in the case of rape/incest" clause:
1. The person supporting the clause wants to punish promiscuous women with an abortion ban, and since victims of rape aren't at fault for being pregnant then it's okay for them to have abortions. The welfare of the unborn child is irrelevant. For example, on the topic of a rape/incest exception clause, Slowwhand says2. The person supporting the clause is not 100% certain that their opposition to abortion is correct. Just to make some numbers up, let's say that you're only 95% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct - in that case you're willing to allow an exception to a ban if the mother's life is at risk. If you're 80% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct then you're willing to allow an exception for rape. If you're 60% certain then you don't oppose a ban, though you do oppose state insurance coverage for abortion. Etc.
3. The person supporting the clause realizes no ban will pass without the clause, and is willing to compromise on the basis that saving most of the unborn still beats saving none of the unborn.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...After eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!" — Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury secretary, 1941.
I enjoy the correlation of people who are all about FREEEEEDDDDDOM and the people who wish to revoke a woman's right to choose.
Sometimes, thinking is hard for some people.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Such as you. As I (and many others) have repeatedly explained, this is not about a woman's right to choose but whether or not we consider a fetus to be a moral person. I realize how disingenuous you like to be, so I fully expect you to spend the next five pages raving about how this is the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-freedom, but I've now explained it to you for the umpteenth time in the hopes that it will stick eventually.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Spot on, although I would also add Mad Monk's explanation.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Which is not an absolute sentiment, it is clearly a matter open to interpretation.
A sensible, intelligent person recognizes that to force your own beliefs on another person is quite wrong - especially through Big Government.
It's a woman's body, it's a woman's choice.
I take a utilitarian approach to the matter. If you use contraception, a baby isn't born. If you get an abortion, a baby isn't born. Either way a potential person is not being born.
As a utilitarian, I also understand if we outlawed abortions:
1) They'd still happen, but in dark backrooms with sketchy "doctors"
2) It'd flood the already burgeoning State-run foster homes/orphanages. Children from this background are statistically far more likely to become criminals or other form of societal leaches.
3) It'd force people not mature enough or ready enough to raise children. This will lead to more poverty, and children raised in this kind of environment are also far more likely to become a societal leach.
So, as you can see, even the economics of the situation back me up on this. Don't you want the government to be smaller, HC? If so, why do you want the government to raise so many children?
You can "explain" all you want, but know that it is not a rational explanation. YOU believe that human life begins as soon as sperm fertilizes egg. YOU wish to force YOUR belief on others using the GOVERNMENT. This is not a logically consistent argument with someone who favours less government intervention.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
You know, if you want to engage in masturbatory activities, the internet also features a great abundance and variety of pornography...
1011 1100
I'm sure HC has moral objections to pornography as well, and thus wishes to ban it.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Asher:
If a woman chooses to abort a child does she not force her belief on to that child? Is that not quite wrong as well?
AND
All because a solution produces additional issues does not make it the wrong solution. By your same reasoning we shouldn't have gun control because of the rise of sword violence! (which, by the way, I support).
I favor less government, but I am also pro-"do no harm". The incepted child has a right to thrive, and this pre-empts the "responsible adults" freedom of choice. In fact, in many instances, it was the freedom of choice that led to the need for the abortion. So, in that regard, we can argue that it is "freedom of choice" that is problem, when in fact we know it is the actual choice made, and not the freedoms that allow it, that we should be arguing.
You can't abort a child, because a child is born.
That's not the because. It's additional rationale. The "because" is it's her body, she has the right to do as she wants with it.All because a solution produces additional issues does not make it the wrong solution. By your same reasoning we shouldn't have gun control because of the rise of sword violence! (which, by the way, I support).
What is the "bottom line" difference between a child that is never conceived and a child who is aborted in its first trimester?I favor less government, but I am also pro-"do no harm". The incepted child has a right to thrive, and this pre-empts the "responsible adults" freedom of choice.
The bottom line is a child is not born. If you choose to call a week old fetus a child, that's your own beliefs that should remain your own -- not to be legislated on others.
What we're getting down to is a difference in religious or spirituality.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
I don't see what it has to do with religion, other than many religions say it is wrong to commit murder.
JM
(Note that I am in favor of a conservative (in the scientific sense) scientific definition of human, which would probably just ban abortions after the first trimester.)
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
You honestly do not see what the definition of human life has to do with religion or spirituality?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Excluding Catholics.
I don't think it has anything (Directly) to do with my or HC's opposition to abortion.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
I think Judeo-Christian ethics have everything to do with it.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
I think the real question is when is it considered "alive", at birth? What is life?
And then you ask when is it considered failure to thrive, child abuse, and murder?
Personally, I think a reasonible arguement can be made (not by me mind you) that life begins at conception, and that life is defined as XYZ... whatever that is. And thus, abortion would be murder. This would have nothing to do with my belief, but about court agreed upon definition of life.
IMO, that definition would have to corrolate with whether taking someone of life support without their permission is illegal or not.
And now we've arrived at the spirituality portion of the debate, where sensible people agree this is open to interpretation and is determined by one's own belief system and thus shouldn't be legislated according to one group's definition.
I do not consider the cells after conception to be a child. Why is your belief more important than mine?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
science has a definition of life, should we use that?
Congratulations, you've just outlawed the consumption of animals and plant life if you do that.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
How are animals and plants human life?
Is 'it' human? Science has an answer to that, is 'it' a living organism? Science has an answer to that.
Is 'it' showing all the characteristics of a human... medical science has an answer to that too.
All of these scientific answers point to late stage abortion being murder.
It is an entirely unreasonable exception which is no different than if we arbitrarily define those with black skin as not being human or any other arbitrary group.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
It currently IS legislated according to one group's definition--namely, the pro-choice one. The government (or, at least, some portion thereof) has ruled firmly on one side of the issue, and presenting that as open-minded or inclusive is patently ridiculous.
1011 1100
I can't see how Asher can be against circumcision of babies but be in favor of abortion...
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks