U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-02-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Paris, IL
186 posts, read 219,423 times
Reputation: 61

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
The legal definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought."

Abortion does not fit that definition and therefore can not be deemed murder.
Legal definitions do not make it any less murder, nor are we as human strictly bound by laws created by man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
Another example: self-defense.


In the case of abortion a child in the womb is in fact defenseless, although videos of abortion procedures have shown that even a child in the womb will attempt to protect themselves from the muderous abortion instruments.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2012, 11:29 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,752,980 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Oh for Gods sake Konrad, you are such an idealist.
I'm flattered you think so.

Quote:
I don't want to get into the whole honor thy nearest warrior because they are defending your freedoms stupidity. Soldiers are tools to conquer lands and make them bend to our will, so you don't get a pass for murder from me. You go to a foreign country and shoot people defending their country, because your gov't tells you they are your enemy and gives you permission. You didn't get my permission, and let's stop pretending they die so we can live. That's bull. Stay out of their country, and you won't have a reason to kill them, fair enough?
It's a double-edged sword. The simplistic idea that abortion is murder simply because you're stopping the child's heart is--insane--as a number of people have pointed out. There are much more interesting discussions to have regarding the morality of abortion. Religion and one-liners aren't it.

Quote:
If my parents become dependent upon me, does that give me the right to kill them? Maybe mom is just becoming too much of an inconvenience, she's not all there anymore anyway. I'll let dad know it's time for her to go, I'm sure he won't mind. It's not like he's doing the caretaking anyway.
The difference here between your elderly mother and a fetus is that one has been born. Birth is a very clear dividing line. Most people don't even get remotely close to birth when they decide to abort.

But, we can talk about euthanasia at another time. That's another fascinating discussion.

Quote:
Why should mothers only have the right to kill their children in the womb and not whenever they become a burden? Since she brought them into this world, who better to take them out, right?
Women are the one's are actually pregnant. They have to literally deal with everything involved. The father can get up and leave and the woman is the only one who has to deal with being pregnant. Why would it not be their sole right?

Quote:
Whatever happened to all the men? Real men want to see their children develop and flourish, they would certainly fight to see them take their first breath.
Sure, but not all men are there to support the child, some men don't want or can't support more children, and elect to have the abortion as well. Ultimately though, men really have zero say because they don't have to do anything with the pregnancy. It's morally reprehensible to force a woman to carry a baby or to force a woman to abort one she wants to keep.

And again, you seem to think that men aren't involved at all in the decision. A large number of abortions are performed by people who have stable relationships, who have kids, who can't support more kids. That's not uncommon. **** happens. Abortion is an answer for some because it's better than the alternative.

Quote:
The feminazis have beaten youall into doormats.
Prima fascia evidence this is a "war on women."

Quote:
You want to go out a be hero's for killing the enemies of your gov't, but you can't be bothered standing up for your own children. You disgust me.
No--not for my government necessarily, but for a women's rights I would. If it be my government that tries to revoke those rights or just a bunch of misogynists.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,008 posts, read 19,452,287 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mylläri View Post
In the case of abortion a child in the womb is in fact defenseless, although videos of abortion procedures have shown that even a child in the womb will attempt to protect themselves from the muderous abortion instruments.
Pro-death people don't want to think about that - it makes it harder to support the destruction of human life - if they can't depersonalize that life.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Paris, IL
186 posts, read 219,423 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Pro-death people don't want to think about that - it makes it harder to support the destruction of human life - if they can't depersonalize that life.
Every single person should watch the documentary entitled "The Silent Scream" which was made by an abortionist.

Most people who are for or indifferent towards abortion have never been exposed to the horrors of this scourge. Typically they feel this way because it is part of a greater agenda they support and either don't know or don't care enough to have a fully informed consience. And if they do it goes to show that they devalue human life in and of itself, a grave disorder.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,775 posts, read 8,658,375 times
Reputation: 4235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post

Prima fascia evidence this is a "war on women."



No--not for my government necessarily, but for a women's rights I would. If it be my government that tries to revoke those rights or just a bunch of misogynists.
Now that's funny - I am a woman you dope! What men are doing is using women for sex, then throwing up their hands and saying "I had nothing to do with it, it's her problem now" - and you call that supporting womens' rights. That is so twisted. What about the rights of the baby that you created?
The purpose of sex is not pleasure, the purpose is reproduction, even insects know that much. It just happens to be pleasurable, but that does not absolve your responsibility for the consequence of the act.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 12:17 PM
 
413 posts, read 503,027 times
Reputation: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyForever View Post
Murder stops a beating heart...abortion does the same thing...NO ONE in their right mind can deny this.
Yep and the right wing has no problem with stopping a beating heart when the give the death penalty to people. They also don't care about that beating heart when it comes to sending American soldiers into war.

And they don't seem to care that starvation..

(due to someone not being able to feed a child after being forced to carry a fetus to term because the right wing believes they should be able to tell a women that she should have to bear a child)

might also stop a beating heart.

You republicans are so hypocritical about a woman's choice.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,775 posts, read 8,658,375 times
Reputation: 4235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
Yep and the right wing has no problem with stopping a beating heart when the give the death penalty to people. They also don't care about that beating heart when it comes to sending American soldiers into war.

And they don't seem to care that starvation..

(due to someone not being able to feed a child after being forced to carry a fetus to term because the right wing believes they should be able to tell a women that she should have to bear a child)

might also stop a beating heart.

You republicans are so hypocritical about a woman's choice.
The baby is going to starve because she gave birth? Where do you get this crap, Rachel Maddow?
Abortion is a way to cull the herd of undesirables, it's that simple. Liberals don't even know this is aimed at them, because they have been taught nothing is their responsibility, leave it up to the state, it knows best.
Death penalty is a 'penalty' for the most heinous of acts, such as intentionally murdering children. Actions have consequences.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 02:08 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,752,980 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Now that's funny - I am a woman you dope!
So was the writer of that article--and she explicitly points out that she really believe it was about saving unborn children--until she started to actually think about the Pro-life platform and its organizations, and how it always boils down to "women shouldn't be having sex."

You know what they say about the road to hell.

Quote:
What men are doing is using women for sex, then throwing up their hands and saying "I had nothing to do with it, it's her problem now"
And you're presuming women don't use men for sex? How naive.

I'm saying that women are the ones who have to deal with the pregnancy, it's ultimately their right on how they choose to handle it--either carrying to term or not.

Quote:
- and you call that supporting womens' rights.
I call letting a women have control over her own body supporting women's rights, yes.

Quote:
That is so twisted. What about the rights of the baby that you created?
It doens't have rights. It's still a parasite for at least 20 weeks, statistically more.

Quote:
The purpose of sex is not pleasure,
You're doing it wrong.

Quote:
the purpose is reproduction, even insects know that much.
Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
It just happens to be pleasurable, but that does not absolve your responsibility for the consequence of the act.
By-golly, you're right. Maybe that's why people use a variety of birth control methods to offset and lower the risk or pregnancy. And then, when they do get pregnant, and they don't want or can't support a child, they abort the fetus before it wants to borrow the car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
The baby is going to starve because she gave birth? Where do you get this crap, Rachel Maddow?
It's pretty simple really. If you force a woman to carry a child until birth, how exactly is that person going to feed the child they can't support? Easy answer is they don't and the child dies. That is murder. Aborting it before it gets there is the responsible choice.

Quote:
Abortion is a way to cull the herd of undesirables, it's that simple. Liberals don't even know this is aimed at them, because they have been taught nothing is their responsibility, leave it up to the state, it knows best.
Huh? Sure, if a child is not wanted, that's one reason people choose abortion. How you think this is aimed at liberals? And yes, people take responsibility for their actions--it's why some choose abortion.

Quote:
Death penalty is a 'penalty' for the most heinous of acts, such as intentionally murdering children. Actions have consequences.
Sure, but abortion isn't murder. We've covered that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 05:30 PM
 
1,407 posts, read 634,799 times
Reputation: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
Yep and the right wing has no problem with stopping a beating heart when the give the death penalty to people. They also don't care about that beating heart when it comes to sending American soldiers into war.

And they don't seem to care that starvation..

(due to someone not being able to feed a child after being forced to carry a fetus to term because the right wing believes they should be able to tell a women that she should have to bear a child)

might also stop a beating heart.

You republicans are so hypocritical about a woman's choice.
1. Death Penalty is used for people who have KILLED someone...they deserve it.
2. The military is a VOLUNTARY force...no one is forced to go in the military and doing so you know the risks involved.
3.Have problems feeding the baby THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT!!! As usual you lib/commies blame everyone but the person who did it to themselves...its pretty simple common sense..can't feed a child don't get pregnant...or give it up for adoption.

Oh and I am not a republican.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2012, 05:59 PM
 
379 posts, read 345,579 times
Reputation: 336
I just don't see the logic in granting personhood (and protections/rights that comes with it) to fetuses/zygotes (depending on the stage of development) who mostly lack sentience, ability to feel pain etc. The grown, sentient adult should be given priority over a "potential" life. There is a reason why most abortions are carried out in the 1st Trimester and all with additional restrictions one the 3rd starts since by then nerves and synapses start to "mature" plus the issue of viability.

Although my fundamental problem with the abortion debate (and the gay rights debate, for that matter) is that it tries to legislate on principle. The idea is that pro-choicers believe principally that there is a point before the embryo 'lives' where a woman has a right to terminate it, whereas pro-lifers think principally that life begins at conception and life is completely sacred. This is problematic, since principles generally appeal to opinions and understandings and views, rather than facts. Not only does this make any one side's 'victory' difficult to attain, but it also violently skews the debate like how OP dies it.

In any case, very quickly I had to give up because of the surprisingly somewhat logical statement that 'you are not allowed to end a life'. And so there is no principled exit to the maze, no big argument or flawless point that will persuade anyone, it's a matter of opinion, and neither side is as crazy as the other wants to think. So I changed my stance a bit. I know I'm pro-choice and I'm a rational human being so I wanted to find out how I could justify my position on the law.

Instead of legislating on principle, which is a bad idea, we most often do and always should, legislate on efficiency. I know that's a vague statement and the concept of efficiency needs to be qualified somehow (hopefully without resorting to principle). But think of this as legislation functioning as a way to reduce suffering, crime and misuse and to increase growth, understanding and harmony. The abortion argument lines up well here. It's historically documented that legalizing abortion reduces crime-rates (it not only brings down the rate of illegal abortions, but also gives a safe way to terminate pregnancies in situations where it could lead to a child raised in poverty and need, etc.). Especially in the situation of rape leading to pregnancy, there are naturally going to be incredibly burdens on a mother in carrying the pregnancy to full term and then possibly also in raising the child, which again could adversely affect the child. In essence, saying 'I oppose a woman's right to abortion, even in cases of rape,' is in no way even close to saying 'I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman's body and life than that woman does.' What it is saying is that 'I believe in the binary sanctity of life where you either are alive or you are dead, and I do not care for the quality of life after birth.' That's as extreme as you can put it.
TL;DR: Don't legislate on principle, legislate on efficiency. Legalizing abortions (should) lead to more efficient, higher life-quality societies.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top