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.
Yes, women died at the hands of butchers in back alley abortions. Back alley abortions are a bad 'choice'; I tend to think a woman of even less than average intelligence should foresee that surgery in someone's tool shed might end badly and that carrying the baby to term and handing it over to a church or adoption center might be the safer course of action. Bad choices often have bad, even horrendous outcomes. You may mark me down as being every bit as much against back alley abortions as I am against abortions in clinics and hospitals. Better?
'Back alley' abortions does not mean they literally had their abortions in back alleys or toolsheds. It implies they entered the doctor's office through the back door to avoid detection. I know 2 girls who had illegal abortions, one was in a prominent doctor's office after hours, and the other was by a non professional who botched it and the girl, after going home, had to go to emergency to stop the pain and bleeding.
I guess when you debate a topic no one else is debating you have an advantage there. So, if I have serious questions about when life begins and/or when life is entitled by right to protection under the law but I don't follow pregnant women around to see if they're getting enough water I lose the debate. Right? That's your contribution to this discussion? And you're still bewildered as to why no one wants to engage you in serious adult discussion?
That was a different poster who asked you if you follow women around. Take your beef up with him.
I'm not "bewildered" by anything. You're the one who used one of those asinine emoticons when you couldn't process through your little noggin that trumpeting yourself as "pro-life" requires you to oppose things like war, which is why I made the reference that had you "bewildered."
Yes, that's much more comforting, isn't it? A dictator in the sky accountable to no one being the arbiter of what rights we shall have. Your posts in this thread have been utterly outstanding.
A benevolent dictator, surely. If we accept the notion that rights come from government we necessarily accept the notion that rights are revocable by government. That way lies tyranny.
At least my arguments cohere about one idea, namely that our collective ignorance about when human life begins impels us ethically to give nascent life the benefit of the doubt. (Whether we follow pregnant women around to see if they're getting enough vitamins or not. That has to be one of the most imbecilic defenses of abortion on demand that I've ever heard.)
2. By tracking and closing down illegal abortion providers and by prosecuting women who get illegal abortions.
3. Yes, as long as the option of abstinence and the current child support laws are taught as a part of the comprehensive sex ed curriculum.
4. Yes, as long as the taxes of the rich/wealthy are raised as well.
5. Yes--I would try to discourage these women from getting illegal abortions.
3rd world american taliban, knuckle dragging thinking like this is extreme. your ideas will never prevail and are absurd. get used to it, women have the right to do as we please. yours views have more support in the extreme middle east.
'Back alley' abortions does not mean they literally had their abortions in back alleys or toolsheds. It implies they entered the doctor's office through the back door to avoid detection. I know 2 girls who had illegal abortions, one was in a prominent doctor's office after hours, and the other was by a non professional who botched it and the girl, after going home, had to go to emergency to stop the pain and bleeding.
If we have to live with abortion on demand, and we do, I not only support the existence of clean, well run places where licensed professionals can see to the (grim) task, I also support throwing illegitimate practitioners in the hoosegow.
The best way to reduce, or even eliminate, abortion on demand isn't by changing laws, but by changing hearts and minds.
A benevolent dictator, surely. If we accept the notion that rights come from government we necessarily accept the notion that rights are revocable by government. That way lies tyranny.
At least my arguments cohere about one idea, namely that our collective ignorance about when human life begins impels us ethically to give nascent life the benefit of the doubt. (Whether we follow pregnant women around to see if they're getting enough vitamins or not. That has to be one of the most imbecilic defenses of abortion on demand that I've ever heard.)
Who here is arguing that "rights come from government?" I have not advanced that argument. Government is the tool by which we enforce mutually agreed-upon rights, which change, modify and develop over time within a society. How do you arrive at the conclusion that someone who takes this view believes that rights "come from the government?"
How in the world you conclude that this man in the sky is "benevolent," which would appear to conflict with most of what we see in this miserable, harsh world, is "bewildering," particularly for someone who claims to be an agnostic.
Did you miss the part where I told you that someone else asked you to follow women around? You may not have pieced this together, but this whole manner I have that offends becomes acute when people annoy me. When you repeatedly attribute to me arguments or statements I have not made, I become annoyed and, consequently, you get offended.
That was a different poster who asked you if you follow women around. Take your beef up with him.
I'm not "bewildered" by anything. You're the one who used one of those asinine emoticons when you couldn't process through your little noggin that trumpeting yourself as "pro-life" requires you to oppose things like war, which is why I made the reference that had you "bewildered."
I used the emoticon because I think your introduction of the existence and history of war in human experience is a completely irrelevant non sequitur. You're free to debate whatever you like; I'm debating the humane and ethical course of action in a life and death situation when the fundamental question goes unanswered.
3rd world american taliban, knuckle dragging thinking like this is extreme. your ideas will never prevail and are absurd. get used to it, women have the right to do as we please. yours views have more support in the extreme middle east.
Oh Yes, because the Taliban and other Muslim extremists are such huge fans of contraception and democracy (sarcasm).
I used the emoticon because I think your introduction of the existence and history of war in human experience is a completely irrelevant non sequitur. You're free to debate whatever you like; I'm debating the humane and ethical course of action in a life and death situation when the fundamental question goes unanswered.
It's entirely relevant and also entirely transparent as to why you wish to avoid such relevant discussion.
BTW, here's a repeat question about abortion, since the other genius has already bowed out: What should be the penalty for a mother who hires someone to "murder" her "baby?"
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 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.
