Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Blood on the hands of pro-abortionists... "deal with it"

200 posts in this topic

Posted

part of the reason why i don't like to engage in philosophical questions ("when does life begin", "how late is too late", etc.) regarding abortion is actually pretty pathetic: because those are hard, open-ended questions, and i can't come up with an answer that i feel is good enough and makes enough sense that i think it should influence the law.

on the other hand, the practical effects of banning or severely limiting abortion are something that we are aware of. it's been measured and recorded and it's counter intuitive if your goal is to make abortion stop happening. that's why i approach the debate from that angle.

well the consequence of my point of view is that at worse, women will severely maim themselves. They will do things, horrible things to their body in order to excape the mental anguish they feel from having this particular life grow inside them.

The consequence of your point of view is that innocent lives are lost regardless of whether or not you feel they are "living enough to warrant saving"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Post-partem occurs too...does that justify Gosnell's actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

also everybody needs to imagine that my avatar is engaging in a lengthy abortion debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But we don't want to just minimize abortions, we want to impose our moral judgement on others!

This is not imposing moral judgement. We all agree that killing is wrong and killing children is the worst. The debate is when does it become a child. Noone here would allow a woman to kill a newborn, wouldn't matter if she was raped or not. I believe that a child is a child MUCH earlier than 20 weeks (which is what the law allows) Most people on here are not even willing to address it, likely because of some loyalty to the term liberalism or because they are just against anyone that they label as conservatives. But in our hearts killing children is wrong. Why is it not important to determine when a child becomes a child? I realize that we may have to shed party loyalties but right is right. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Higher Brain functions dont start for several months, with recent studies suggesting perhaps even a few years, after birth.

Viability outside of the womb begins as early as week 17 of the pregnancy.

The currently law addresses neither of these issues to the satisfaction you suggest.

Actually the current law doesn't address it to your satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually the current law doesn't address it to satisfaction.

But it is to yours?

So you are saying that 20 weeks is okay for abortion to happen, even though you said earlier that it should not be allowed after proven viability outside of the womb.

That is a contradiction. Viability outside of the womb happens before 20 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is not imposing moral judgement. We all agree that killing is wrong and killing children is the worst. The debate is when does it become a child. Noone here would allow a woman to kill a newborn, wouldn't matter if she was raped or not. I believe that a child is a child MUCH earlier than 20 weeks (which is what the law allows) Most people on here are not even willing to address it, likely because of some loyalty to the term liberalism or because they are just against anyone that they label as conservatives. But in our hearts killing children is wrong. Why is it not important to determine when a child becomes a child? I realize that we may have to shed party loyalties but right is right. Right?

You are way off base. You may believe something, I may believe something, but all of that is irrelevant here. The law that's been in place for 40 years without being overturned or altered is the law, everything else is an opinion. Everyone can have them but Roe vs. Wade is the legal definition. Thats the standard we follow. Some of us may think its too much, some may think it's not enough but its philosophy and therefore is academic. It certainly is not going to be changed anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You are way off base. You may believe something, I may believe something, but all of that is irrelevant here. The law that's been in place for 40 years without being overturned or altered is the law, everything else is an opinion. Everyone can have them but Roe vs. Wade is the legal definition. Thats the standard we follow. Some of us may think its too much, some may think it's not enough but its philosophy and therefore is academic. It certainly is not going to be changed anytime soon.

That is exactly the mindset that allows politicians and extremists organizations to railroad society. Of course we should talk about it. WE ARE THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION. It is on us to decide what is right. Plenty of laws have been written that never should or that were outright heinous. The legality of a thing has nothing to do with its morality. And a cultural morality must be addressed by the people who it affects not the elected officials charged with enforcing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But it is to yours?

So you are saying that 20 weeks is okay for abortion to happen, even though you said earlier that it should not be allowed after proven viability outside of the womb.

That is a contradiction. Viability outside of the womb happens before 20 weeks.

Can you quote where I said that & what I meant by viable in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Of course we should talk about it. WE ARE THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION. It is on us to decide what is right.

No it's not. Because there is no universal right. What you think is right is not what I think is right. What you are really saying is "we should try to get things more in my line of thinking" which by definition is going to make things worse for other people whose blood is a red as yours, who are as American as you, and whose opinion matters exactly as much.

Politicians aren't "railroading society," they're finding a relative compromise. If you notice that the legislation is on hypothetical railroad tracks, that just means the train is going in a direction you don't like.

And of all the social debates, abortion and gay marriage are the silliest because more than any other they are about trying to force people to adhere to YOUR way of thinking. (FYI, I thought it was cute that you chalk up a dissenting opinion to blind adherence to liberalism, when conversely you think people should blindly agree with your worldview). There are already choices on the board that allow you to have your way:

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Those are choices. Those God-forsaken Liberals have created a scenario where people with differing opinions have options they can choose that align with their perspective and moral imperative. But conservatives aren't happy until the only choice is the choice they like. That's why there shouldn't be a discussion. Because any discussion that effects change, is effectively taking away the right of the people to come to a decision on their own, based on their opinions, morals, experiences, and unique determining factors based on their place in life.

No. if you enact laws that take away the right of choice, and force you to make personal decisions that adhere to what is written in the law, THAT is being "railroaded."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But it is to yours?

So you are saying that 20 weeks is okay for abortion to happen, even though you said earlier that it should not be allowed after proven viability outside of the womb.

That is a contradiction. Viability outside of the womb happens before 20 weeks.

I would like to see your sources RE: 17 years, because other (admittedly internet-based sources) suggest that no child has survived earlier than 20 weeks. The two earliest preterm births are James Elgin Gill (128 days) and Amilia Taylor (129 days) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Elgin_Gill#Notable_preterm_births, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384621.stm). Note that babies born this early have extremely low chances of survival, though I disagree that means they should be denied treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That is exactly the mindset that allows politicians and extremists organizations to railroad society. Of course we should talk about it. WE ARE THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION. It is on us to decide what is right. Plenty of laws have been written that never should or that were outright heinous. The legality of a thing has nothing to do with its morality. And a cultural morality must be addressed by the people who it affects not the elected officials charged with enforcing it.

You are correct in your analysis, but Roe vs Wade is not one of those laws. It's the best that could have been come up with to provide legal guidelines for a difficult question.

But you do hit it on the head in your last sentence which everyone with an honest opinion agrees with - the people it affects need to make the decision, and Roe vs Wade allows for that while maintaining some enforceable legal boundries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites