Fetuses stomped in Texas 'abortion'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

And FTR, I don't see this as a "Christian" issue in the least. It's just a matter of basic fairness that anyone with a brain can see.

---

Really? That's an interesting argumentative tactic: "Anybody who does not see the truth of my position does not have a brain."

Let me propose an alternative position.

Abortion rights are a very tough issue for just about everybody to make their minds up on, no matter which side they eventually land on.

I myself am pro-choice. This is not a position I take lightly. Extremist conservatives try to paint me as a person who is in favor of (and even takes delight in) the ripping of unborn babies from their mothers' wombs. This is not so. I (and I believe, most moderate pro-choice folks) actually find abortion to be a very terrible thing, and believe it should always be the absolute last option considered. But we want it to remain an option for women.

I believe it is the same with pro-life people. I do not believe that being pro-life is a position that most of them have taken on lightly. I believe they have made careful consideration of the issue and have taken the position that their consciences steered them toward. Extremist liberals try to pain them as intolerant Bible-thumpers who want only to subjugate women by making them slaves to the child-bearing process, but for the most part, that is not true. Like the majority of pro-choicers, the majority of pro-lifers have simply made a tough decision about a gray issue based on what they believe to be right.

The problem is that neither side (in the U.S. at least) will give the other side the benefit of the doubt. That's because of the "all or nothing" mentality your politicians have instilled into the argument around abortion rights. They do this because it serves their purposes to have it so, and they don't really care whether it's good for women or their unborn babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

But we want it to remain an option for women.

---

They already have that option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moi

This idea that a woman is robbed of her "choice" if abortion is illegal is horseshit. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable. By choosing not to have sex, a woman chooses not to get pregnant, and short of rape, she is not "compelled" to serve as anyone's life-support system. The truth -the truth- is not that women would be denied a choice; it's that some women simply don't like the choice Nature has presented them. They want to have sex without having to deal with the consequences.

---

Killing babies has become a way for the women's rights movement to try and equal themselves with males by assuming as little responsibility as men do when it comes to babies.

The right solution would be to make men be just as responsible for the lives they create as women are. (Child support is just a start.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

They already have that option.

---

Yes, they do. Because fortunately, abortion is legal.

Her point is, choose not to get pregnant in the first place.

I agree with you that this 'all-or-none' debate gets us nowhere, because clearly it's the radical pro-choice 'even when the baby has desceneded into the canal, she should have a choice' crowd that has won the day. Even most pro-choice people don't agree with the positions we take on abortion in this country. A big part of the reason for that is the same reason we haven't made any headway into registering guns. In American politics, the slippery slope is not a metaphor... people are always coming back for the next piece in their agenda. And this is the only reservation I have about gay marriage, btw... I can't see the next move, but I know I won't like it.

And by the way Goofy, it may be that Canadian women are much more enlightened than American women. God knows, you are so much ahead of us on everything else. So maybe you don't know this, or could even dream of this... but 30% of all abortions performed last year were done and described by the woman as 'part of normal birth control'. This kinda shoots your 'it's a terrible choice' theory out of the water. And if it doesn't, this sure should (granted, it's a bit dated, I'll keep looking for more up to date ones)

Quote:

---

The repeat abortion rate in the U.S. has risen rapidly since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. In 1973 it was estimated that only about 12% of the induced abortions were repeat abortions. By 1979 the national repeat rate had risen to 29.4% and by 1983 it had reached 38.8%. In 1987 the Alan Guttmacher Institute took a survey of 9480 women at approximately 100 abortion clinics throughout the U.S. and found that 42.9% of the women said they were having repeat abortions. 26.9% were having a second abortion; 10.7% were having a third abortion; and 5.3% were having a fourth abortion or more. (Henshaw 1987, 1988)

---

In fact, abortion in America is like plastic surgery, and it receives about roughly the same consideration. It's about making money for a specialized practice and finding a way to market that to an audience.

Found a statisctic from this year, but it's in UK, so don't compare it to the numbers I posted above:
Oops I did it again

Quote:

---

One in three abortions is now carried out on women who have had at least one before, according to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

---

Maybe Candaian women aren't all that enlightened after all and you just don't understand the issue properly:

Oops we did it again too...

In any case, this idea of abortion as a 'terrible, horrible but necessary choice that happens at worst once in a woman's life' is a dishonest myth that does not portray the reality. In reality, there is a percentage of women out there that don't use conventional birth control and when their number comes up, they deal with it through abortion. Why they don't have themselves sterilized once and for all and save themselves the bother is beyond me.... :dizzy2:

The point is, it has to be an option. Other wise, it will be done in a back alley with a rusty coat hanger.
There are always extreme cases were it has to be left open: rape, health risk to mother, etc.

I agree, it shouldn't be so taken lightly. I think it should have to be done in first three months or so, unless it the mother will die or something. But you can't illegalize it. That would be far worse, becuase it will still happen, but increase the chances of both the mother and the baby dying, which isn't really that "pro life" when both die.

Steppe,

I usually respect what you have to say, more than you probably know, even if I disagree with you (which granted, is frequently). However what you just said is hogwash. Using this same argument, I could argue for legalizing burglary. Well, I'm going to break into the house, no matter what... if you don't want anybody to get hurt, you better just let me have my way and do as I please and keep that pesky homeowner out of my way...he'll be responsible for getting shot, I'm not responsible for shooting him...

I find it amazing that we have such a nanny-state that a 17 year old can get expelled for bringing a cough drop to school for violating the no-tolerance drug policy, yet a 12 year old can go out of state to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge in the 9th month of her pregnancy... all in the name of 'choice'.

Honestly Steppe, if you have that little respect for human life that you think 3rd trimester abortions ought to remain legal and unregulated, why stop there... when the baby gets to be a cramp in the mother's style, shouldn't she be free to practice infanticide for the first year? We wouldn't want her to be impositioned now... she might do something that harms herself as well.... :dizzy2:

I should have been more clear on my policy (though it is very unclear anyway.)

All abortions after the first 3 months out to be illegal, unless the mother will die.

That is what I meant by having to have abortions legal. It has to be legal for them to be able to get them, but if they're too stupid to figure out that they don't want that baby in 3 months, I hope they will put it up for adoption cause they'd be piss poor parents.

I meant to say that you can't illegalize all abortions. Now looking at my post, it makes no sense at all, and doesn't tell what I meant to say. I hope this makes a bit more sense, if it doesn't, I can try and elaborate again. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Her point is, choose not to get pregnant in the first place.

---

I'm a pretty sharp guy, Don. I know that was her point. My point is that there will always be circumstances where women take all conceivable (no pun intended) precautions, and still end up pregnant. I believe they should have the option to end the pregnancy if they wish. Do some people abuse this right and treat abortion as a form of birth control? You bet. But the majority do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I agree with you that this 'all-or-none' debate gets us nowhere, because clearly it's the radical pro-choice 'even when the baby has desceneded into the canal, she should have a choice' crowd that has won the day.

---

And one of the reasons is that the radical pro-life "no abortions, ever, for any reason, even if the mother has been raped or is in danger of dying" do the loudest yelling on the pro-life side, and they scare moderate pro-choicers away from any yielding as far as restricting late-term abortions, even though many pro-choicers (myself included) actually agree that mid to late-term abortions should be restricted. They are just as afraid of that "slippery slope" that you talk about in your next paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Even most pro-choice people don't agree with the positions we take on abortion in this country.

---

Agreed, as I said above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In American politics, the slippery slope is not a metaphor... people are always coming back for the next piece in their agenda. And this is the only reservation I have about gay marriage, btw... I can't see the next move, but I know I won't like it.

---

Agreed, as I said above. But both sides are guilty of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And by the way Goofy, it may be that Canadian women are much more enlightened than American women. God knows, you are so much ahead of us on everything else.

---

Oh I don't know about that. I'm a big fan of American women. Always have been. I don't think our women are really different from each other at all. And yes, we are ahead of you in many things (beer, hockey, maple syrup, natural resources, wide open spaces, to name a few), but you guys leave us behind in a number of areas (bourbon, just about every other sport besides hockey, bbq sauce, white sand beaches with 100 degree weather, plus I'm pretty sure an American invented low-rise jeans for which I am profoundly in your debt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So maybe you don't know this, or could even dream of this... but 30% of all abortions performed last year were done and described by the woman as 'part of normal birth control'. This kinda shoots your 'it's a terrible choice' theory out of the water.

---

I suggest you take a remedial business statistics course if you think that blows my theory out of the water. Let me explain: As I said above, it is my belief that the majority of pro-choice folks believe abortion is the absolute worst option available and should not be taken lightly. You have provided figures that show that only 30% of women in a given year considered the procedure to be part of normal birth control. So, even if I grant you that this means that these women undertook the abortion decision lightly (which in itself is a questionable conclusion), it is still only 30%, and 30% does not a majority make...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Maybe Candaian women aren't all that enlightened after all and you just don't understand the issue properly:

Oops we did it again too...

---

Maybe you should pay better attention to your own articles before posting them to support your arguments. From the first page:

Quote:

---

In 1993, fewer than 2% of abortions were obtained by women who had had three or more previous procedures, suggesting that abortion is not widely used as a primary method of birth control.

---

Oops!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In any case, this idea of abortion as a 'terrible, horrible but necessary choice that happens at worst once in a woman's life' is a dishonest myth that does not portray the reality.

---

In your mind perhaps. Your own figures/research have shown that it is only a minority of women who perhaps view abortion as routine. And anecdotally Don, I can think of three women off the top of my head that I know personally that have had abortions. In every case, they agonized over the decision and did it because they felt they really had no other choice. While they all expressed guilt over what they did, they all believe they did the right thing. And none of them had a second abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In reality, there is a percentage of women out there that don't use conventional birth control and when their number comes up, they deal with it through abortion.

---

Mostly correct, but let me do a quick edit for you:

"In reality, there is small a percentage of women out there that don't use conventional birth control and when their number comes up, they deal with it through abortion."

There, that's better...

Sorry, Steppe, I thought you were saying:

Elective abortion SHOULD only be done in the first trimester. After that, women SHOULDN'T have them, but as they will anyway, we ought to keep it legal.

I'm actually somewhat pro-choice myself, at least during the first few weeks. I think the way you get rid of abortion is to educate people & offer them viable alternatives to the point where it's unheard of.

My apologies sir. :bow:

Well, honestly Goof, I had to quit posting statistics. As I'm sure you've been Googling away as much as I have, you've seen that the numbers dont' correlate from one source to another, even from groups that should agree with each other. Example, the Family Rights Council numbers don't agree with the numbers from the National Right to Life. The numbers from NARAL don't agree with the numbers from Emily's list.

I'll make an admission that the original 30% number I tossed out there was my own summation of what I was seeing, and I was actually pretty conservative with that figure.

According to most sites, over 90% of abortions are performed for elective reasons (not right time for mother, relatioship difficulties with the father et. al.) You could argue that all of those are birth control, but I took the 30% number from what I estimated to be a cross section of multiple (more than one) abortion recipients and women who specifically listed birth control as the reason.

All I'm trying to say is you're trying to paint a picture that the average woman getting an abortion is a scared 18 year old without a pot to piss in. In fact, I think the numbers and the attitudes would frighten you, at least what I saw did me. Hell, there was a woman who wrote a 2 week series of Lifestyle articles for the NY Times (or maybe the Post) that decided to abort the boy in her fraternal twin set and keep the girl, in the 6th month, and write all about her decision making process. It essentially came down to 'well, I can still go out nights if I've only got one kid, but two will slow me down, and I like little girls better'. That doesn't sound like alone, terrified and not knowing which way to turn to me.

No need for apologizing. I would have come to the same conclusions myself if I had just read it, since it is very vague and this:

Quote:

---

I think it should have to be done in first three months or so, unless it the mother will die or something. But you can't illegalize it.

---

seems to say that you can't illegalize it after 3 months.

Quote:

---

I'm actually somewhat pro-choice myself, at least during the first few weeks. I think the way you get rid of abortion is to educate people & offer them viable alternatives to the point where it's unheard of.

---

I agree. However, it is easier sad than done (which I'm sure everyone knows).
I'm a Junior, and I know a whole bunch of kids younger than I am who have already had sex. And we have a pretty comprehensive Health class (it's not like all absteninace or anything).
I don't know if they used protection or not, but a bunch probably didn't. It's gonna be a bitch to solve, but we ought to, because I agree, having an abortion should always be the last option.
All I can say is that no one in my (very small) circle of friends has gotten pregnat or impregnated a girl to my knowledge. But I don't listen much to gossip. And if so many people in a very rich, high education school have sex, poorer school systems and unedecated people probably get it really bad.

Okay, if the moderators think I'm getting out of bounds here, by all means, please smack me around... but I was under the impression that the current generation of Youth actually lean more towards Clintonian acts, and that this is actually leading to a reduced teenage pregnancy rate. Is that true?

Yes. Up the arse too. In my town's middle school, it is particullary popular I've heard. I don't have as much problems with upper classmen doing it, but middle schoolers is just sick.

But people still do normal sex, mainly I think those that have been going out for a while, or hook ups. At least that's what I've heard... I am the worst person to be asking, believ me. :embarassed:

Non-vaginal intercourse has become an accepted way of birth control amongst the younger generations apparently (I'm 23, and at least where I live, it wasn't that way when we were teens).



Proletariat, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed. If people skydive and have an accident, should they be denied surgery ? People have always tried to improve things for themselves, essentially, making it so they can do what they want to do. It's a bit silly to apply a 'natural limit' argument here.


The real problem is the value of the fetus, wether or not it should be considered a human being, or (a weaker condition) whether or not it has value in itself that justifies forcing a woman through pregnancy.

Let's not kid ourselves here, only a few people believe that a fetus has no value and is just a parasite feeding on the mother. Things like this are often said by the pro-choice camp, and can be defended from a scientific point of view, but I doubt many believe it to be morally correct.

Which leads to a second question, if a fetus has value by itself, how do we determine what this value is, and how does it compare to the 'value' of the mothers right to choose.
The first problem here is assessing the value, how do we determine the value of human life. Is it valuable because it is human or is it an aspect of being human that makes it valuable ? And since a fetus isn't a human yet, how much value do we place on potential, and how do we define that potential ?

Both are hard questions. In regards to the first one, I would say that humans have (human) value because they can reason, reflect, or religiously speaking, have a soul. This is an aspect of being human, however, it leads to other questions: Are babies born with it ? Does it develop during the fetal stages, and if so, when ?
If humans have (equal) value because they are human, a rather abstract concept, then how human are fetuses ?

This leads to the second question, how do we account for potential ? A fetus has the potential to become human and to become self conscious. However, we have no guarantees that it will (and what do we do if we know if won't realize this potential ?). And should potential be defined as something that can be fulfilled, or as an abstract concept ? Does a coma patient in vegetative state still have potential ?

I think most 'reasonable' pro-choicers, and perhaps some pro-lifers too, will say that a fetus has more value the more it approaches a human being. It's potential, whether for becoming a human being or for developing self consciousness is being realized more.

This implies that it is possible to weigh the value of the fetus against that of the mothers right to choose. And determine a point where the mothers right to choose doesn't weigh up against the fetus' right to live. The problem still remains, how do we determine those values ?

Personally, I'm for the three month period, I think it's long enough for the mothers and short enough so that the fetus is still far enough away from a human being. Of course, this choice is subjective,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I'm a pretty sharp guy, Don. I know that was her point. My point is that there will always be circumstances where women take all conceivable (no pun intended) precautions, and still end up pregnant.

---

Too bad being a sharp guy isn't going to make sure you see what I've already said.

You even skipped the part I bolded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable.

---

So, no. There is absolutely no way a woman can ever claim she took 'every conceivable precaution' and pretend she didn't anticipate whatsoever being pregnant.

Please, go through my post and tell me where I'm wrong, or just agree to disagree. Just telling me I'm wrong with no explanation is insulting and a bit beneath you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Proletariat, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed. If people skydive and have an accident, should they be denied surgery ? People have always tried to improve things for themselves, essentially, making it so they can do what they want to do.

---

No. And for you to suggest that is to go against everything I thought you believed about the nature and individuality of human life.

A fetus/baby/whatever is not a broken bone or punctured lung or anything to do with a skydiving accident. It is not a part of a woman. It is a distinct being unto itself. The money, care or other provisions are for the baby, not for the mother.

Not much more disgusting than the practice of killing people for convenience and rationalizing it as an element of fundamental liberty. It is not. It is mass killing - nothing more or less.

Quote:

---

If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable.

---

Pro, that requires personal responsibility. It is illegal in this day and age to make people take responsibility for their own actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

That's exactly the problem. At whom's cost can they do what they do? (This is why your skydive example is flawed at it's core.)

---

Well, you are proving my point here. The question of abortion can not be asked without asking what the nature of a fetus is.

There is a huge difference between saying 'women who don't want children can choose to not have sex' and 'abortions are wrong because they are a crime against the unborn children'.

Your statement is of course right, although practically a bit dodgy. I would have included contraception in their options (with an accepted risk). But I feel that it's besides the point. By saying that you have already made a judgment about the value of the unborn child (it exceeds the right of choice of the mother, I'm not arguing that this is wrong).

Basically, you're saying abortion is always wrong, now here are your options. You are not making a (convincing) point about WHY abortion is wrong.

Sorry, I just completely re-did my reply to while you were typing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Too bad being a sharp guy isn't going to make sure you see what I've already said.

You even skipped the part I bolded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable.

---

So, no. There is absolutely no way a woman can ever claim she took 'every conceivable precaution' and pretend she didn't anticipate whatsoever being pregnant.

Please, go through my post and tell me where I'm wrong, or just agree to disagree. Just telling me I'm wrong with no explanation is insulting and a bit beneath you.

---

You obviously don't know me very well. If you did, you'd know that there is very little that is beneath me....

~;p

Where we disagree is that you are saying a woman having the choice to simply abstain from having sex until she is prepared to have a child if she should become pregnant somehow offers her the same level of freedom as knowing she has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

That is not true.

Your theory, although you disguise it as a "choice," is actually a lack of choice. Your proposal would limit all women by denying them a basic human need/pleasure until such time as they are ready to start a family. That may have worked a few hundred years ago, but today it is not only impractical, but in my opinion, unfair and unhealthy.

Yes, I am disgusted with the small percentage of women (and men) who think of abortion as a substitute for responsible sex. But I am not willing to punish the rest of the female population for the irresponsibility of a few idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Your theory, although you disguise it as a "choice," is actually a lack of choice. Your proposal would limit all women by denying them a basic human need/pleasure until such time as they are ready to start a family. That may have worked a few hundred years ago, but today it is not only impractical, but in my opinion, unfair and unhealthy.

---

The 'winds of change' is a brutally flawed way to define murder, Monsieur Shallow.

Btw, the left claiming to be 'pro-choice' is the biggest sham I've heard. They won't let you choose a Christing, frigging thing unless it involves yanking someone's plug or vacuuming out a human from a womb. All in the name of Practicality, Dignity, and Liberation, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

The 'winds of change' is a brutally flawed way to define murder, Monsieur Shallow.

---

Only if you accept that it's murder to remove a clump of cells that isn't a human being, Mademoiselle Self-Righteous.

:charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Btw, the left claiming to be 'pro-choice' is the biggest sham I've heard. They won't let you choose a Christing, frigging thing unless it involves yanking someone's plug or vacuuming out a human from a womb. All in the name of Practicality, Dignity, and Liberation, eh?

---

It's almost as silly as the right claiming to be 'pro-life' as they initiate war after war, fight for the right for private citizens to own assault rifles, and execute the mentally handicapped.

:duel:

Happy Friday everybody, there's a bottle of scotch at home with my name on it...

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Only if you accept that it's murder to remove a clump of cells that isn't a human being, Mademoiselle Self-Righteous.

---

Hey, Monsieur Jerk, I was just making a joke at your own self-effacing (a truly admirable quality) jest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

It's almost as silly as the right claiming to be 'pro-life' as they initiate war after war, fight for the right for private citizens to own assault rifles, and execute the mentally handicapped.

---

Absolutely agree. ('cept this thread has nothing to do with your examples. well, maybe the last one can be tied in.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Happy Friday everybody, there's a bottle of scotch at home with my name on it...

~:cheers:

---

You seem like a Black label guy. How far off am I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

It's almost as silly as the right claiming to be 'pro-life' as they initiate war after war, fight for the right for private citizens to own assault rifles, and execute the mentally handicapped.

---

what are you talking about?
i am against the death penalty for the most part, my "conservative" parents didnt know what to think about the war in Iraq (i supported it for various reasons), i DO support the ability to own assault rifles (without automatic capabilities) and other arms and i dont know WHERE execution of the mentally handicapped was proposed by anyone whose opinion i respected.

you are as guilty of the stereotypical villification of others as anyone on the 'right" that i know (including myself)



proletariat - i agree with many of your ideas (that was a top-notch post), but i am not so sure that they, nor the "Basic human rights" that prop them up can exist when one is not a "believer" that some sort of judgement awaits us in this life or the next (with any omnipotent authority). I am also an atheist, but only because i am without a belief in a higher power. i still have hope (sometimes in the face of all common sense and logic). If there is no God/judgement, i believe that everything that the west stands for is illogical and useless for anything but self-preservation (which is as worthwile as trying to fly while falling to your death). Humanitarianism, freedom, right to life are all constructs of ignorant and optimistic people in that case. It is the hope that there is some sort of plan and the belief that there must be that keeps me fighting for what i believe to be right

without the superlative, all of the "rights" we have would unravel and be shown as dancing around the fact that all we do is meaningless

the right to life is, imo, the fabric of everything else we stand for. all other humanitarian ideas hinge on the sanctity of life and it is worth fighting for simply because if it isnt then nothing we have seen is.

I would disagree. You can still care, and love others without believing in any sort of higher power. Just because there isn't a god, doesn't mean that life is pointless. As long as you somehow interact with someone postively, you made an impact. Not a huge one in the long run, but even the smallest pebble creates a ripple in the river of life (wow... deep... ~:handball: )

My dead dog might be considered "pointless" because he just lived and died, and I don't think that he is now in any sort of heaven or hell or anything, but he put a positive impact in my life, and that of my families.

Proletariat, it has to be kept legal during the first three months. There are always extremating cirumstances. Always. And to just refuse to even to consider any of those cases would be unfair.
And I honestly don't believe that during the first trimester, it could be considered a human being. I think it is far worse to be massacaring countless of animals for pointless and cruel purposes than to allowing abortions during the first three months, but I am weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

[bI would disagree. You can still care, and love others without believing in any sort of higher power. Just because there isn't a god, doesn't mean that life is pointless. As long as you somehow interact with someone postively, you made an impact. Not a huge one in the long run, but even the smallest pebble creates a ripple in the river of life (wow... deep... ~:handball: )

---

you "can" do anything that you want in that case - but it would be naive to think that it really mattered whether you cared or loved. it wouldnt be less "right" to kill or destroy as inevitably all is killed or destroyed

the logic doesnt seem to be on your side, (from my understanding of life at the age of 22). It may seem to make sense then to be good and kind, but it makes equal sense to dominate, harrass and destroy those who are displeasing to you

in fact, that would seem to make even more sense if you could get away with it

i simply reject that kind of a world even if most all evidence points to it as truth and choose to defend unborn human life - because in the end, if i am "wrong" imy actions will not have mattered anyway

Well, not much really does prevent people from killing each other. That's why it happens all the time, I think.
That said, I think it does matter, because life is precious. Do I get this from my Mom and Dad raising me with "Christian" values, if you will? Possibely. But then, many American Indians had a great reverence for life, even though they weren't Christian. I suppose their belief system would be religious. Buddhists worship life, the "circle of life", I believe.
But is there a judgment in higher life in any of the numerous American Indian belief systems, or that of Buddhists? I'm not, sure, I'm honestly asking, but I thinkthat there may not be... anyone know?

And mabye logic isn't on my side... never had much use for it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moi

This idea that a woman is robbed of her "choice" if abortion is illegal is horseshit. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable. By choosing not to have sex, a woman chooses not to get pregnant, and short of rape, she is not "compelled" to serve as anyone's life-support system. The truth -the truth- is not that women would be denied a choice; it's that some women simply don't like the choice Nature has presented them. They want to have sex without having to deal with the consequences.

---

Well, according to the Bible, virgin pregnancy is a fact. Which would mean that our young virgins can get pregnant without having sex and without choice or consent....... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, according to the Bible, virgin pregnancy is a fact. Which would mean that our young virgins can get pregnant without having sex and without choice or consent....... ~D

---

Cute, but if you read the Gospel of Luke, Mary actually does consent.


Other than that, well said Proletariat. I have nothing to add. :bow: