Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Adam Caramon]

I think that if you truly believe in the right to Life, this also means you have the right to be born to experience that Life in the first place.

Things that do not exist do not have rights. Therefore, the question of when something exists is essential.

I don't understand this argument. To me, it's the same as walking down a street and judging people based off of how their personal situations are.
I'd hardly advocate death for someone who has had a rough life. Thankfully I don't see vans rolling down streets euthanizing people who have had difficult lives.

Classic strawman.

Additionally, we have a personal responsibility for our actions and must live with the consequences of all our actions.

It seems really odd to me that you want to punish someone's mistake of being irresponsible with suddenly being responsible for a life.

 

[GaryPanic]

Laxster -

your arguement - isn't spelled out in a logical way

ra** is ra** period - it is never ok
if a lady get pregnat after this - to enforce that they carry this is a extra burnden/punishment (?) - a bit of a double wammy.

I can perfectly understand women who terminate at this point...

 

[laxster]

your arguement - isn't spelled out in a logical way

Well, it might not appear to be logical because it doesn't follow the normal knee-jerk reactions these conversations can have. My main point is that regardless of how the conception occured, it occured. Through nature it results in a human. The Founding Fathers of the United States believed very much in inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For life to occur, something has to be born. If something is not born or a natural process is interfered with, you are taking away the possibility for it to be born, thus undermining what Life actually is -- regardless of when you believe it occurs!

I never said ra** was okay. It is obviously a very terrible thing, and I can understand WHY someone possibly might want to abort the pregnancy. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, and that the life shouldn't exist.

A ra** doesn't reduce the worth of the resulting baby. How can we place value on some lives and not on others just because the circumstances weren't the way we wanted them?

Things that do not exist do not have rights. Therefore, the question of when something exists is essential.

Life is an inalienable right. Regardless of if you think it is a human, or nothing more than a blob of cells, it cannot be debated that it is a living human upon birth. To believe in life, something has to be born for that life to be experienced! The argument is no less diminished regardless of your personal definition of what constitutes being alive.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I never said ra** was okay.

Actually you did.

Isn't labeling "ra**" as ok

Nobody else had said it was ok, so you must be the one labelling it so.

How can we place value on some lives and not on others just because the circumstances weren't the way we wanted them?

What about the value of the life of the raped woman, as Garry said carrying that baby could be a double whammy preventing the woman from getting her life back on track.
It may not be an easy decision but not everybody is prepared to hide behind the priests' skirts.

Brian

 

[Alc]

Actually you did.

Nobody else had said it was ok, so you must be the one labelling it so.

You're not going to get anywhere by talking sense.
I was told to go back and reread his post (didn't change what he wrote, but it killed a few seconds).

 

[Adam Caramon]

If something is not born or a natural process is interfered with, you are taking away the possibility for it to be born, thus undermining what Life actually is -- regardless of when you believe it occurs!

So would you say birth control pills and condoms are interfering with a natural process?

To believe in life, something has to be born for that life to be experienced! The argument is no less diminished regardless of your personal definition of what constitutes being alive.

This is circular logic.

 

[Vassago]

I truthfully believe it's a woman's right to get an abortion. When you start to overcomplicate the issue by adding conditions to something that is currently already legal, it can only lead to more trouble than it's worth.

For those who say they are against it, but okay with it when a woman is raped, how can that be okay? Most arguments I hear for anti-abortion state it's murder to do. It's a living being. How can you then condemn that living being just because it was concieved out of a crime it had nothing to do with?

 

[Brianwarnock]

You are right Alc, and I am starting to get a bit fed up with the thread as the Bible quoters refuse to think and just quote what they have been told.

Think I'll go and watch Abu City duff up Manure.

Brian

 

[laxster]

Actually you did.

Where? I NEVER said that, nor do I think ra** is ever okay.

Nobody else had said it was ok, so you must be the one labelling it so.

Ah, but that's an assumption on your part, which I've just cleared up. Multiple times.

What about the value of the life of the raped woman, as Garry said carrying that baby could be a double whammy preventing the woman from getting her life back on track.
It may not be an easy decision but not everybody is prepared to hide behind the priests' skirts.

It's not just about ONE life, it's about TWO lives, and taking responsibility for another life under your care! Look, I realize ra** is an awful thing. But so is interfering in the right to life -- especially when the life is on the cusp of being experienced!

And if you yourself aren't capable of taking care of another human, there are plenty of people who are and who would gladly do so! I know a couple who literally waited for months to take in an adopted child.

Life is such a wonderful, amazing thing! Sometimes I think I'm drunk on it. I'm so grateful to be here on this earth, to make friends, to experience everything I care to, good AND bad! I just don't understand how a ra** legitimizes taking away everything a person can have to live for or how it could possibly be construed to mean that there is no responsibility involved between the mother and resulting child.

 

[Brianwarnock]

So would you say birth control pills and condoms are interfering with a natural process?

QUOTE]

Once we go down that path I'm outa here since I can't see a thing without my specs.

Brian

 

[Rich]

for or how it could possibly be construed to mean that there is no responsibility involved between the mother and resulting child.

Where's the mother going to get her love for said child, don't tell me, god

 

[chergh]

I just don't understand how a ra** legitimizes taking away everything a person can have to live for or how it could possibly be construed to mean that there is no responsibility involved between the mother and resulting child.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make you right. Someone else's body is their own business. What gives you any right to try and dictate what they may or may not do with it?

 

[laxster]

You're not going to get anywhere by talking sense.
I was told to go back and reread his post (didn't change what he wrote, but it killed a few seconds).

And still no one can seem to find anywhere stating that I believe ra** was "ok".

You are right Alc, and I am starting to get a bit fed up with the thread as the Bible quoters refuse to think and just quote what they have been told.

Who is a "Bible quoter" here? My reasoning is A) a line of reasoning most people don't stop to consider, and B) a secular line of reasoning.

In my opinion, government doesn't belong legislating who can die, and who cannot. We have a right to life, ergo a right to be born. And no one has brought up any legitimate reasons as to how you couldn't possibly have that right to be alive after you were conceived. I am open to hearing real reasons (not excuses). But I guess a lot of people refuse to think and instead trot up the same tired dogma over-and-over again.

Unless anyone has anything new to contribute on this topic, I'm out. Live and let live, right?

 

[Alc]

And still no one can seem to find anywhere stating that I believe ra** was "ok".

Okay, lets' keep this simple.

If someone wrote
'Isn't labelling bullfighting as ok but fox hunting as not, just classism of right and what isn't?'
They would be saying that someone, somewhere had said that the former was ok and the latter was not.

If someone wrote
'Isn't labelling taking heroin as ok but taking crack as not, just classism of right and what isn't?'
They would be saying that someone, somewhere had said that the former was ok and the latter was not.

If someone wrote
'Isn't labelling taking sexism as ok but racism as not, just classism of right and what isn't?'
They would be saying that someone, somewhere had said that the former was ok and the latter was not.

You wrote
'Isn't labeling "ra**" as ok but "abortion-as-birth-control" just classism of what's right is not?'
Since nobody else has said that ra** is ok, what are people supposed to get from your statement, if not the fact that you're saying that ra** is ok?

 

[Kryst51]

Who is a "Bible quoter" here? My reasoning is A) a line of reasoning most people don't stop to consider, and B) a secular line of reasoning.

I am a Bible quoter, he might be talking about me.

 

[Adam Caramon]

In my opinion, government doesn't belong legislating who can die, and who cannot. We have a right to life, ergo a right to be born.

So let me see if I follow. The Founding Fathers, in the act of forming our government, said we have the right to life. I.E., our government gave us the right to life. But you don't think the government should be legislating who can die.

The government giveth and the government can taketh away, no?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I am a Bible quoter, he might be talking about me.

I'm sure of it. Since nobody else ever quoted any scripture. Odd since you had the decency to start a new thread when it was pointed out to you.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

What gives you any right to try and dictate what they may or may not do with it?

The individuals on this forum have no rights to tell you to do anything, unless you ask.

However, the government seems to have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies as there are whole sets of laws that do so (we covered this earlier in the thread). And government is supposedly run by the will of the people. So, potentially, people could have the laws changed so they can tell you not to have an abortion, not that you'll ever need one.

I think that may be a little short-sighted, though. I'd hate to see the back-alley abortion doctors start back up.

 

[Kryst51]

I'm sure of it. Since nobody else ever quoted any scripture. Odd since you had the decency to start a new thread when it was pointed out to you.

It's alright, I don't mind his frustration with it. Although I must say, that usually people require ideas to come from somewhere other than the person's own opinion, I don't see why me saying where mine are based from can be frustrating, as I am not touting my own dreamed up opinion, but showing evidences/sources (whether it is agreed with or not) for the opinion I have. I do think, I just think about things differently, and in a very different frame of reference.

If that statement wasn't aimed at me, then nevermind to this post

Originally posted by Brianwarnock:

the Bible quoters refuse to think and just quote what they have been told.

 

[laxster]

So let me see if I follow. The Founding Fathers, in the act of forming our government, said we have the right to life. I.E., our government gave us the right to life. But you don't think the government should be legislating who can die.

The government giveth and the government can taketh away, no?

No. That's where you go wrong. I bolded that statement. While the argument is also a secular one, our Founding Fathers believed that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were inalienable rights, given to us by God and that government has no right to interfere with them. Only God can take these things away from us. Or, if you don't believe in God, then nothing can take these away.

Certainly not the "more perfect Union" that they were trying to establish.