Pro-lifers, please explain this to me

[BMW540I6speed]

I wouldnt mind if Roe vs Wade was overturned and given back to the states so the evangelicals would stop useing this issue to garner votes. Do Evangelicals really want Roe overturned, or are they happy with the nibbling that's occurring? Are they willing to wait for a hollowing out of abortion rights, or will they eventually demand a full scale reversal in return for their votes?

I really have no sense of this, based on all the winking that goes on - seems very sophisticated that this block understands they can't really talk about it in front of the MSM...and that they realize it would ultimately put them in a worse position if Roe was overturned (driving support on the other side finally way up).

I think some evangelicals do want Roe overturned. I'm not so sure about the Republican party, though. For the past 30 years, the Republicans have enjoyed the support and donations of millions of single-issue voters. If the Republicans' self-professed goal of overturning Roe becomes reality, a lot of those single-issue supporters will abandon the party and take their money with them.

It's far better for the Republicans to keep talking up the "we want to overturn Roe" bit without actually doing anything about it. They keep the base energized and they keep the money rolling in. Besides, if they really wanted to outlaw abortion or overturn Roe, they could have done it on a number of occasions during the past seven years. And yet all attempts to pass amendments failed to get out of committee, even when the Republicans controlled all three branches of government.

Republicans don't really want to see Roe overturned for a couple reasons. First, they enjoy the divisiveness and the demonization of "liberals" it allows them. Like the Cancer Society absent cancer, they'd be a bunch of rebels with one less cause. There's another reason, though: plenty of Republicans and quite a few fundies, too, actually on occasion need the freedom Roe affords them when the inconvenient thing happens. Yep, many of them actually do take quiet, furtive advantage of this ability to choose. They just don't talk about it. I mean, who wants to expose one's self as a great big giant hypocrite? Better that should happen by accident.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

Why would you, my friend, just ignore everything i said and then include an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i said?

What the FUCK is your point?

SCIENCE deems when a brain functions, that is not something that is even FUCKING up for discussion, and if you were as braindead as a pre-week 25 fetus, you'd be fucking dead, that is not MY OPINION, that is the fucking way it is.

It either is or it isn't, when it comes to brain function and life, it's never maybe.

Well to be as colorful my fucking point is that not everyone agrees that your criteria is THE one to be used. I understand it, and I personally haven't an issue with how you go about it. It isn't fucking about fucking me. It also isn't about fucking you. It's about a debate in this country you may find illogical but it exists nevertheless. I was doing you the courtesy of offering a rational explanation about how irrational people view things. A counter argument to your point is that while the fetus will come out of that "coma", someone who has had a round put into their brain liquefying part of it isn't.

Like I said, this isn't my point, but it does come into discussion.

The criteria is clinical death, what has been approved of by every first world nation, it's how we DEFINE life, it's not fucking up for debate because some idiot thinks that life is breathed into the zygote at the second it is made.

I get your point though, but you could just go out and say you're playing the devils advocate so i don't have to wonder, ok?

This debate SHOULD be about life and death and it IS, but there is no definitions based on anything but the one presented by me, that is a raw definition from the only thing that can be said to be the difference of life and death.

The counter argument doesn't help since it's not a coma the fetus is in, it's complete braindeath and at that point, removing the fetus cannot possible mean killing a human.

The fetuses brain is as functional as one that has had a 30-06 bluehead hit the head.

You could remove the brain completely at that stage and nothing would happen to it until week 25.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

Why would you, my friend, just ignore everything i said and then include an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i said?

What the FUCK is your point?

SCIENCE deems when a brain functions, that is not something that is even FUCKING up for discussion, and if you were as braindead as a pre-week 25 fetus, you'd be fucking dead, that is not MY OPINION, that is the fucking way it is.

It either is or it isn't, when it comes to brain function and life, it's never maybe.

Well to be as colorful my fucking point is that not everyone agrees that your criteria is THE one to be used. I understand it, and I personally haven't an issue with how you go about it. It isn't fucking about fucking me. It also isn't about fucking you. It's about a debate in this country you may find illogical but it exists nevertheless. I was doing you the courtesy of offering a rational explanation about how irrational people view things. A counter argument to your point is that while the fetus will come out of that "coma", someone who has had a round put into their brain liquefying part of it isn't.

Like I said, this isn't my point, but it does come into discussion.

The criteria is clinical death, what has been approved of by every first world nation, it's how we DEFINE life, it's not fucking up for debate because some idiot thinks that life is breathed into the zygote at the second it is made.

I get your point though, but you could just go out and say you're playing the devils advocate so i don't have to wonder, ok?

This debate SHOULD be about life and death and it IS, but there is no definitions based on anything but the one presented by me, that is a raw definition from the only thing that can be said to be the difference of life and death.

The counter argument doesn't help since it's not a coma the fetus is in, it's complete braindeath and at that point, removing the fetus cannot possible mean killing a human.

The fetuses brain is as functional as one that has had a 30-06 bluehead hit the head.

You could remove the brain completely at that stage and nothing would happen to it until week 25.

Of course I play devil's advocate, you dick
If the goal is to understand the situation, then one has to factor in how other people think. My agreeing or disagreeing doesn't affect how two sides reason. Remember, I used to get paid to think this way

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

Why would you, my friend, just ignore everything i said and then include an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i said?

What the FUCK is your point?

SCIENCE deems when a brain functions, that is not something that is even FUCKING up for discussion, and if you were as braindead as a pre-week 25 fetus, you'd be fucking dead, that is not MY OPINION, that is the fucking way it is.

It either is or it isn't, when it comes to brain function and life, it's never maybe.

Well to be as colorful my fucking point is that not everyone agrees that your criteria is THE one to be used. I understand it, and I personally haven't an issue with how you go about it. It isn't fucking about fucking me. It also isn't about fucking you. It's about a debate in this country you may find illogical but it exists nevertheless. I was doing you the courtesy of offering a rational explanation about how irrational people view things. A counter argument to your point is that while the fetus will come out of that "coma", someone who has had a round put into their brain liquefying part of it isn't.

Like I said, this isn't my point, but it does come into discussion.

The criteria is clinical death, what has been approved of by every first world nation, it's how we DEFINE life, it's not fucking up for debate because some idiot thinks that life is breathed into the zygote at the second it is made.

I get your point though, but you could just go out and say you're playing the devils advocate so i don't have to wonder, ok?

This debate SHOULD be about life and death and it IS, but there is no definitions based on anything but the one presented by me, that is a raw definition from the only thing that can be said to be the difference of life and death.

The counter argument doesn't help since it's not a coma the fetus is in, it's complete braindeath and at that point, removing the fetus cannot possible mean killing a human.

The fetuses brain is as functional as one that has had a 30-06 bluehead hit the head.

You could remove the brain completely at that stage and nothing would happen to it until week 25.

Of course I play devil's advocate, you dick
If the goal is to understand the situation, then one has to factor in how other people think. My agreeing or disagreeing doesn't affect how two sides reason. Remember, I used to get paid to think this way

Me dick you bring bike? It's been far too long since i had to hang on for life of the handles of a really fast bike.

I am basing my standpoint on the only scientific standpoint on life there is and as any secular government has to rule with "what we know" that is it.

Now the SC knows this and so do McCain and Palin, they will throw a few bills that the SC will dismiss but it will make them seem like they support some kind of pro life stance.

I do get where you are coming from though, for obvious reasons.

You're a good man and i hope that my harsh language wasn't taken to heart, it's pretty much just how i express myself...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

Why would you, my friend, just ignore everything i said and then include an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i said?

What the FUCK is your point?

SCIENCE deems when a brain functions, that is not something that is even FUCKING up for discussion, and if you were as braindead as a pre-week 25 fetus, you'd be fucking dead, that is not MY OPINION, that is the fucking way it is.

It either is or it isn't, when it comes to brain function and life, it's never maybe.

Well to be as colorful my fucking point is that not everyone agrees that your criteria is THE one to be used. I understand it, and I personally haven't an issue with how you go about it. It isn't fucking about fucking me. It also isn't about fucking you. It's about a debate in this country you may find illogical but it exists nevertheless. I was doing you the courtesy of offering a rational explanation about how irrational people view things. A counter argument to your point is that while the fetus will come out of that "coma", someone who has had a round put into their brain liquefying part of it isn't.

Like I said, this isn't my point, but it does come into discussion.

The criteria is clinical death, what has been approved of by every first world nation, it's how we DEFINE life, it's not fucking up for debate because some idiot thinks that life is breathed into the zygote at the second it is made.

I get your point though, but you could just go out and say you're playing the devils advocate so i don't have to wonder, ok?

This debate SHOULD be about life and death and it IS, but there is no definitions based on anything but the one presented by me, that is a raw definition from the only thing that can be said to be the difference of life and death.

The counter argument doesn't help since it's not a coma the fetus is in, it's complete braindeath and at that point, removing the fetus cannot possible mean killing a human.

The fetuses brain is as functional as one that has had a 30-06 bluehead hit the head.

You could remove the brain completely at that stage and nothing would happen to it until week 25.

Of course I play devil's advocate, you dick
If the goal is to understand the situation, then one has to factor in how other people think. My agreeing or disagreeing doesn't affect how two sides reason. Remember, I used to get paid to think this way

Me dick you bring bike? It's been far too long since i had to hang on for life of the handles of a really fast bike.

I am basing my standpoint on the only scientific standpoint on life there is and as any secular government has to rule with "what we know" that is it.

Now the SC knows this and so do McCain and Palin, they will throw a few bills that the SC will dismiss but it will make them seem like they support some kind of pro life stance.

I do get where you are coming from though, for obvious reasons.

You're a good man and i hope that my harsh language wasn't taken to heart, it's pretty much just how i express myself...

No problem as far as I'm concerned. I tend to look at what people mean rather than what they say at times, so I was pretty much chuckling at it. Life is too short to get my panties in a bunch over trivialities.

As far as the bike goes, well someday you'll have to see for yourself.

As far as the legalities go, Bush was the best shot those who opposed abortion had. He's in favor of banning or restricting it and he had a Congress which was most favorably disposed to his way of thinking. Nothing came of it. McCain himself isn't a serious anti abortion proponent, and while Palin could theoretically come to power, there's no way that any conceivable Congress would go along. In other words, abortion is going to stay like it is, and we'll keep going over it in internet forums.

Status quo.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I fit your profile and don't see a contradiction. I believe that you choosing to have sex is your choice to accept the consequences of that action which could include having a child. In the case of rape, the woman is not choosing to have a child, thus abortion would be an option. ...

I see no problems with my point of view.

So, you basically are pro-life because the mother should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant?

How is she being punished? Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: datalink7I'm an atheist and I'm "pro life" (though I hate the terms "pro life" and "pro choice" as I think they are inaccurate and misleading). So there goes your theory...

In that case, if you don't believe that a deity breathes a soul into the embryo at conception, why do you think a 16-celled embryo has a right to life? Why should we place more value on the well-being of a 16-celled embryo that doesn't have a brain and thus couldn't possibly have a personality over that of a fully developed woman?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I fit your profile and don't see a contradiction. I believe that you choosing to have sex is your choice to accept the consequences of that action which could include having a child. In the case of rape, the woman is not choosing to have a child, thus abortion would be an option. ...

I see no problems with my point of view.

So, you basically are pro-life because the mother should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant?

Having to raise a child is God's righteous punishment for immoral sexual behavior.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: zeruty

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I pro-life. I just don't think it's the governments place to make laws regarding personal decisions. That's why Roe V Wade should be overturned, to place it back at the discretion of the state. I'd actually prefer to have each state have a vote among their citizens.

You state that you don't think it's the government's place to make laws regarding personal decisions, and then you follow it up immediately with the idea that the state governments should make such laws.

How about making NO such laws, and leave the decision up to the individual?

I am all for the woman's choice whether to have unprotected sex. That really is her choice. Being raped however, wasn't her choice, and in that case.. it's less reprehensible to choose abortion.

What if the woman chooses to have protected sex, and that protection fails, for whatever reason? The woman has consistently chosen to not have a child, whether it's by preventing conception, or terminating the fetus once it's created.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I fit your profile and don't see a contradiction. I believe that you choosing to have sex is your choice to accept the consequences of that action which could include having a child. In the case of rape, the woman is not choosing to have a child, thus abortion would be an option. ...

I see no problems with my point of view.

So, you basically are pro-life because the mother should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant?

How is she being punished? Did you even read what I wrote?

Being unwillingly compelled to endure an unwanted and unnecessary consequence is pretty much a punishment by definition -- at least it is in our language.

That is aside from the fact that your reasoning itself is abysmal on its face. Accepting potential consequences is not the same thing as consenting to each and every one of those potential consequences -- especially when a particular consequence invovles a violation of one's fundamental bodily rights. For example, driving a car in traffic implicitly assumes the potential consequence of being involved in an injury collision, but you do not automatically waive your rights to seek restitution to such injury every time you get behind the wheel.

Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit. That fact is well established in precedent.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
I have found that many pro lifers do not agree with abortions in the case of incest or rape, so there is no contradiction there.

As far as the death penalty, neither side of the debate is inconsistent.

A pro-lifer that supports the death penalty sees that life starts at conception and is an innocent being. A criminal sentenced to death is not innocent, and the murder is justified.

A pro-choicer that speaks out against the death penalty does not think that life starts at conception, so it is not murder.

The whole debate centers on when life begins. The death penalty has no relevance other than to distract people from the core of the debate.

Doesn't the bible teach us to turn the other cheek? What happens when a person is wrongly convicted?

Edit-Does anyone really believe that the death penalty prevents crime?

It would if it was used on all convicted murders. If it was common place to have death penalties i think crime would go down a lot. The risk is not worth the reward anymore.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Most of you, however, feel that exceptions should be made in the case of rape and incest. In fact, it's really only the outliers who feel that abortion should still be illegal for victims of rape.

My question is, how can you be pro-life for the above reasons, but only in cases where the chick was having a good time? Is the life that develops as the product of rape no longer a life? Should it not be valued?

The elimination of all abortions would be a great thing. Certainly if the mother's life is in true medical danger (not some pop-culture psychiatrist's loose definition of danger) and she already has children, depriving those children of their mother would be worse than losing a single child. But really, this is a very rare thing, and thus should be the exception and not the rule.

I would gladly support federal legislation eliminating all partial-birth, late term, and 3rd term abortion. Not because I support earlier term abortions or because I support a laundry-list of exceptions, but because the unborn children are being deprived of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness on which this country was founded. The lives are worth saving, but in politics there is always compromise. Saving 10000 unborn children due to a compromise is better than saving 0 with no compromise.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

It would if it was used on all convicted murders. If it was common place to have death penalties i think crime would go down a lot. The risk is not worth the reward anymore.

Of course that's assuming that most (or even a significant fraction) of murders are conducted by people who are doing a risk/reward analysis beforehand. That's just not the case though.

The reason the death penalty remains in America has nothing to do with its effectiveness. It has everything to do with the desire of politicians and other groups to be 'tough' on crime, basing their strategy on the mistaken assumption that increasing the severity of punishments will lead to a reduction in offenses. (studies clearly show that the likelihood of being caught with a lesser sentence attached is a far greater deterrent then a heavier penalty)

The death penalty is unfairly administered, poorly implemented, and sets the disturbing precedent of the government being able to legally kill its own citizens. No thanks.

 

[brad310]

I dont think any mid or late term abortions should be done, except for mothers health reasons. Anything before that, I think is for the woman/family to make.

Given my personal opinion, I think it would be unfair to project that personal - religious belief onto people who may think differently. Abortion is a religious issue, and if you take away that decision, you give power to the state through the christian church. Not to mention the child abuse and back alley abortion issues.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: winnar111
If you want to kill someone for rape, execute the rapist. Spare the baby.

Amen. Abortion is murder against the baby, just because the mother chooses to initiate it doesn't make it any less barbaric. God said he hates the shedding of innocent blood and those who kill a baby before it's born, or kill a baby by drilling a hole in it's head when it could easily be born then (!!!), will have to answer for their acts.

I'm for the death penalty but it's used so rarely now we might as well not even have one at all. The Bible teaches a lot of things about our personal lives, but gives responsibility to the government as a whole. Comparing a serial murder / rapist / child rapist / murder who gets the chair to an abortion is just grasping for straws because as someone pointed out earlier, one is innocent and the other has been found guilty by the government set up by God.

What

 

[Wheezer]

I used to be pro-life.

Then I became pro-choice.

Now that I am a grown up I realize that I, you, and especially the government has no business in deciding the fate of a pregnancy, anymore that we do telling someone what kind of sex to have in their private bedroom.

that is strictly up to the individual(s)

This world would be a lot better place if people would just mind their own fucking business.

 

[KIRBYEE]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
The elimination of all abortions would be a great thing. Certainly if the mother's life is in true medical danger (not some pop-culture psychiatrist's loose definition of danger) and she already has children, depriving those children of their mother would be worse than losing a single child. But really, this is a very rare thing, and thus should be the exception and not the rule.

I would gladly support federal legislation eliminating all partial-birth, late term, and 3rd term abortion. Not because I support earlier term abortions or because I support a laundry-list of exceptions, but because the unborn children are being deprived of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness on which this country was founded. The lives are worth saving, but in politics there is always compromise. Saving 10000 unborn children due to a compromise is better than saving 0 with no compromise.

Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

 

[KIRBYEE]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

The child has no rights before birth and the child certainly has no interests while still in the womb. It is not a citizen and actually isn't even a child before birth. There is no murder.

Banning abortion leads to no good. I don't give a damn if aborts are made and I can't understand why some make it to be such a big issue.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

It's not a child. It's a fetus that happens to be a part of the mother, that can potentially become a child. Therefore, it's the mother's choice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

It's not a child. It's a fetus that happens to be a part of the mother, that can potentially become a child. Therefore, it's the mother's choice.

In your opinion, when does that choice end?

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

Fool. What if the woman cannot afford to properly care for the child? What if she just doesn't want it? What will the quality of life be for this unwanted child? Is it really in the best interest of the child to bring it into a home that cannot properly support it?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

You continue to confuse "zygote" and "fetus" with "child." You continue to confuse a pre-viablity human life with a person.

Since your premise is nonsense, so are your conclusions.

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[blackangst1]

I dont believe in the the layout of the OP. To me, the death penalty and abortion should be off the table. On DP, if I were the relative or victim of a crime terrible enough to qualify for death penalty, to me death is an easy way out. I would ask would you rather die or spend 50 years in solitary?

On abortion, because zygote leads to child, it is therefore alive, a new DNA make up, a new life form, therefore terminating it is murder. Also, its a different thread, I would keep abortion legal so long as the father was required to give consent also, and of he didnt, it would be illegal to come after him for ANY support. You can make the choice, but you must live with the consequences.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

Fool. What if the woman cannot afford to properly care for the child? What if she just doesn't want it? What will the quality of life be for this unwanted child? Is it really in the best interest of the child to bring it into a home that cannot properly support it?

Fool? That is what adoption is for.