.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes yes it is a test to what people actually know about the roe v. wade decision and subsequent abortion court cases.

Well, you kinda blew it considering you asked people what they "thought" not what they believed the law to be. Most people probably answered with their personal opinion on the matter, not what Roe v Wade (or any other court decision) stipulates.

how can you SUPPORT ALL of something when part of it is contrary to what you think? obviously you don't know what you think or you don't know what you're agreeing with. since the former is assinine i'll just chalk it up to very few people actually knowing what roe v. wade said. there is nothing wrong with it. how else am i supposed to find out what at p&n'ers know, outright ask? that wouldn't work because someone might actually go and read up on what was actually said. so i have to ask if someone supports ALL of something and then ask them if they support something contrary to what they say they support!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

If someone wants to abort a child, as far as I'm concerned that's their business and not mine. Do as they please.

if someone wants to end the life of their infant, is that also not your business? draw the line and support why the line should exist.

Someone choosing to abort their child doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form. If that's what they want to do, I have no issue with it. After all, it is their body and their creation, so if they can create it, why can't they destory it?

I would rather see someone get rid of something they don't want before it is born, rather than see them mistreat or even not love a child because they didn't want it.

Ok. Let me get this straight...
You believe that it is ok because it doesn't affect you in any possible way. So this means that any form of homocide is legal as long as it isn't directed at you? Yea, I understand what you are saying, but I am pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Next, you belive that parents can destroy it because they created it??? Next you claim that if you don't want it, you would rather they kill it than mistreat it????? GOD! It just gets worse and worse in your world! Let me paint a picture of the world you are describing...

You live in a world where it is legal for parents to kill their children simply because they never wanted them in the first place. Your world is one in which parents are killing their children because it would not be ok to abuse them. If a parent got frustrated with their child for being bad, the parent could just kill the child. After all, if the parent created the child, the parent has every right to destroy the child.


Yes, I know you don't belive in this. However, your entire arguement is one big ball of flaws and holes and none of it holds a drop of water. I hope you see that now, and will reconsider your position, or come up with some new arguments.

 

[nutxo]

for reference

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: nutxo
for reference

:beer:


Now this thread can die.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy
so if they can create it, why can't they destory it?

the romans thought the same way. of course, it was a paternal right, and it allowed fathers to take out born children

I didn't know that, thanks ElFenix!

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

You believe that it is ok because it doesn't affect you in any possible way. So this means that any form of homocide is legal as long as it isn't directed at you? Yea, I understand what you are saying, but I am pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Let's say your family was fueding with another family. So long as you didn't kill anyone else and both families were okay with killing each other, I say have at it. Hopefully all of them will be killed off, which would take both of them out of the gene pool.

Next, you belive that parents can destroy it because they created it??? Next you claim that if you don't want it, you would rather they kill it than mistreat it????? GOD! It just gets worse and worse in your world! Let me paint a picture of the world you are describing...

I for one don't think a child becomes a child until it's born. So if someone wants to abort, that's their business. What I meant was I would rather see a child aborted, rather than bought into a world by people who don't want it. Ever meet a child that knows they weren't wanted? It's pretty sad and they are a ball full of problems.

You live in a world where it is legal for parents to kill their children simply because they never wanted them in the first place. Your world is one in which parents are killing their children because it would not be ok to abuse them.

I use child and fetus interchangably. If that confused you; my bad.

If a parent got frustrated with their child for being bad, the parent could just kill the child. After all, if the parent created the child, the parent has every right to destroy the child.

I'd draw the line there. Once it is born they need to take care of it.

Yes, I know you don't belive in this. However, your entire arguement is one big ball of flaws and holes and none of it holds a drop of water. I hope you see that now, and will reconsider your position, or come up with some new arguments.

Argument? Who's arguing anyting? You asked for my opinion and then you asked me to elaborate. I never said that my view was better or anything like that. Relax...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes yes it is a test to what people actually know about the roe v. wade decision and subsequent abortion court cases.

Well, you kinda blew it considering you asked people what they "thought" not what they believed the law to be. Most people probably answered with their personal opinion on the matter, not what Roe v Wade (or any other court decision) stipulates.

how can you SUPPORT ALL of something when part of it is contrary to what you think? obviously you don't know what you think or you don't know what you're agreeing with. since the former is assinine i'll just chalk it up to very few people actually knowing what roe v. wade said. there is nothing wrong with it. how else am i supposed to find out what at p&n'ers know, outright ask? that wouldn't work because someone might actually go and read up on what was actually said. so i have to ask if someone supports ALL of something and then ask them if they support something contrary to what they say they support!

Well certainly Roe v Wade leaves open the possibility that a particular state may choose not to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. Now I don't know if any states actually have declined to regulate or not, but certainly in theory it's possible. It's also possible to support all of Roe v Wade (realizing it's a decent compromise) while simultaneously believing that 3rd trimester abortions should not be regulated. In other words, it's not a wrong choice. The 2nd one isn't wrong either because it follows the Roe v Wade decision (but is dependent on what state you live in) -- you only consider it "wrong" because you think there's a better answer. Same with the 3rd and 4th answers. So you have a poll with 4 responses that aren't really wrong, but only 1 which is deemed "correct" in a legal context. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

Again, I think you can feel one way about abortion and another about Roe v Wade. In other words, your opinions on the subject don't necessarily have to comport with the law. This is obvious in those who disagree with any abortion under any circumstance.

So anyway, I think that's why you got responses about how people "feel" not how people reconcile their actual beliefs with the court's decisions on the matter.

 

[BurnItDwn]

i don't fall into a category.

I believe this is something to be decided by women.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well certainly Roe v Wade leaves open the possibility that a particular state may choose not to regulate 3rd trimester abortions. Now I don't know if any states actually have declined to regulate or not, but certainly in theory it's possible. It's also possible to support all of Roe v Wade (realizing it's a decent compromise) while simultaneously believing that 3rd trimester abortions should not be regulated. In other words, it's not a wrong choice. The 2nd one isn't wrong either because it follows the Roe v Wade decision (but is dependent on what state you live in) -- you only consider it "wrong" because you think there's a better answer. Same with the 3rd and 4th answers. So you have a poll with 4 responses that aren't really wrong, but only 1 which is deemed "correct" in a legal context. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

Again, I think you can feel one way about abortion and another about Roe v Wade. In other words, your opinions on the subject don't necessarily have to comport with the law. This is obvious in those who disagree with any abortion under any circumstance.

So anyway, I think that's why you got responses about how people "feel" not how people reconcile their actual beliefs with the court's decisions on the matter.

i'm not asking you if your feelings comport with the law. i still don't see how you can think that the woman has an absolute right and think the state has an almost absolute right to regulate at the same time. that is preposterous. and no, it's not that i'm the one that says roe v. wade isn't the law anymore, it's the SUPREME COURT that said roe v. wade isn't the law any more!

what it accomplished was to see what people knew of abortion law. and i think it did that quite well. very few people actually know what roe v. wade said, and even less know that roe v. wade isn't the current law on the subject. there is nothing wrong with that; linking institutions don't do a very good job of communicating that knowledge.

 

[Tom]

"and even less know that roe v. wade isn't the current law on the subject."

I don't think you are correct about that. If you are that means that the Pennsylvania case completely and totally overturns or supplants Roe v. Wade, and I don't think that is correct.

If you think it does I'd like further explanation or maybe a source..


and if it doesn't you should rethink which answer to your poll is closest to true.

 

[cquark]

I don't see much reason to differentiate between the first and second trimester and the third. Either you believe there should never be abortions or you believe they are a necessary evil. To me the position that abortions are legal until the fetus starts looking like a person is trying to have it both ways.

The problem with this statement is that the question isn't simple enough to have only two sides. Biological development is a continuum from two gametes beginning to merge into a single-celled organism to a multi-trillion celled organism some 13 years later that's developed into a person capable of abstract thought. As a society, we recognize that personhood is gradually attained--granting rights at different ages--age at which abortion is permissible, age of consent, age of driving, age of voting, etc. It's absurd to say that a single-celled organism is a person, but it's equally absurd to say that a person who is 18 years old - 1 hour isn't fully an adult person too. There's no one point on this continuum at which an entity becomes a person. It's a gradual, continuous process that's slightly difference for everyone.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i'm not asking you if your feelings comport with the law. i still don't see how you can think that the woman has an absolute right and think the state has an almost absolute right to regulate at the same time. that is preposterous. and no, it's not that i'm the one that says roe v. wade isn't the law anymore, it's the SUPREME COURT that said roe v. wade isn't the law any more!

If you weren't asking what we "thought" then you shouldn't have phrased your responses the way you did. Here's your first response: "i support all of roe v. wade and think a woman has a right to abortion in 3rd trimester for whatever reason" See that word "think" in there? I think that probably threw people. I take that response to mean: "I support Roe v Wade because I feel it's a valuable court decision and a good compromise on abortion, meanwhile, I personally feel that a woman has a right to abortion on demand." It's easy to see how people could misinterpret the responses. And by the way, just because there's more recent cases and opinions on abortion doesn' t mean Roe v Wade isn't a valuable and historical court decision that impacts all future actions on the issue. If you don't believe that, you misunderstand the importance of legal precedent.

what it accomplished was to see what people knew of abortion law. and i think it did that quite well. very few people actually know what roe v. wade said, and even less know that roe v. wade isn't the current law on the subject. there is nothing wrong with that; linking institutions don't do a very good job of communicating that knowledge.

I understand that it's difficult to conduct a poll of people's knowledge on the forums here, however I can't be the only one who thought you were looking for everyone's opinion. You could have very easily phrased your responses better to get a more accurate idea of people's knowledge of the legal history rather than their personal feelings on the matter.

 

[Fern]

I don't fit into one of your categories.

I'm a "pro-adoptionist" as opposed to pro abortion or anti abortion (purposefully chose the non-pc, but accuate description" IMHO). There are so many loving people who desperatley want a child and can't have one themselves, and not enough children to adopt for all of them.

Although reasonable people can disagree as to when life starts, I think because we're dealing with human life, an innocnets ones at that, we should err on the side of caution. How sad and horrific if one day science definatively resolves the debate and we find that we have been killing innocent sentient beings.

 

[Fern]

Sorry DP

 

[ElFenix]

fine, you're right, i'm wrong, people can't help but have opinions that conflict with their other opinions

 

[DealMonkey]

Whatever elfie boy Don't get all pissy, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was just pointing out how I personally interpreted your responses. Maybe you got what you were after, I don't know . . .

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't fit into one of your categories.

I'm a "pro-adoptionist" as opposed to pro abortion or anti abortion (purposefully chose the non-pc, but accuate description" IMHO). There are so many loving people who desperatley want a child and can't have one themselves, and not enough children to adopt for all of them.

Although reasonable people can disagree as to when life starts, I think because we're dealing with human life, an innocnets ones at that, we should err on the side of caution. How sad and horrific if one day science definatively resolves the debate and we find that we have been killing innocent sentient beings.

WTF? Maybe "not enough" white American orphans. Of course that's the only kind many Americans want. All the rest aren't good enough.

Zephyr

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Whatever elfie boy Don't get all pissy, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was just pointing out how I personally interpreted your responses. Maybe you got what you were after, I don't know . . .

given how unscientific this whole thing is i probably didn't