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.
How Mr. Doherty feels about abortion is irrelevant to his position as mayor. He is not in any kind of position to change the abortion laws at all.
I do not believe in abortion - but I also think that how many politicians feel about it is irrelevant unless they are in some kind of position to vote on the legality / restrictions / etc.
My reasoning for being against abortion has nothing to do with religion but a basic respect for innocent human life.
How Mr. Doherty feels about abortion is irrelevant to his position as mayor. He is not in any kind of position to change the abortion laws at all.
I do not believe in abortion - but I also think that how many politicians feel about it is irrelevant unless they are in some kind of position to vote on the legality / restrictions / etc.
If he becomes PA governor, he will be in a position to relax abortion restrictions. It's pretty safe to say that if he loses the mayoral election, his chance at the governor's seat goes down the toilet.
Quote:
My reasoning for being against abortion has nothing to do with religion but a basic respect for innocent human life.
Abortion should be ones choice, which it is, enough said for me!
My problem is this "choice" ought to be a two-way street, should it not? Should not both the mother have the right to decide what to do with her own body AND the developing fetus have the option to decide it doesn't want to die? I like to consider myself pretty "progressive" overall, but I still keep equating abortion to "baby-killing." I know we can beat around the bush non-stop about when life truly begins---at conception, at birth, six months into development, when the zygote becomes fertilized, yada, yada, yada---but do we really know when the fetus has enough development to sense pain?
I also wonder about what must go through the woman's mind at some point later on in life with all of the "what ifs." Sure, a woman having an abortion at age 25 might not fully realize the levity of her decision, deciding she did at the time what was best for both her future and the unborn child, who may have been born into poverty or into an unsavory environment. However, if I were a woman who had an abortion I'd continuously ask myself:
1.) "What if I had given birth to that child and given it up for adoption?"
2.) "What if that child had the potential to grow into someone who would cure cancer, fight for civil rights, bring about world peace, etc.?"
3.) "Was I being selfish to deny my child the right to life simply because instead of keeping my legs shut I did what felt good at the time and got pregnant?"
4.) "What if I had taken birth control?"
5.) "What does the father truly want deep down inside?"
6.) "What will/do my friends/family/neighbors think of me?"
I could go on and on with how immeasurable the guilt would grow within me. I understand the whole "If you don't want an abortion then don't get one and shut up" argument, considering I use the same one myself to counter people who oppose same-sex relationships or...gasp...same-sex civil unions (thankfully their numbers are dwindling to just a few far right-wing yahoos), but in my particular example nobody gets hurt. In your example you're doing what's good for you, but is it always what's necessarily what's good for the baby? Think about it. What if your mothers had all chosen "It's my body. I'll do what I want?"
A fact that is often overlooked in this whole debate is the fact that there there would be less abortions if the men took responsibilities for there actions. The overwhelming majority of women do not have abortions because they don't want a baby, they seek one because they have a medical condition, feel trapped and alone because the father is telling them they are on their own and/or are pressured by the father into having one. It's easy for someone to dictate to others when they will most likely never know what it is like for the woman who is actually in that situation.
Maybe those who say they want a say in the matter and those that choose the pro-life stance should spend more time preaching to all of the irresponsible men who believe birth control is a woman's responsibility.
My problem is this "choice" ought to be a two-way street, should it not? Should not both the mother have the right to decide what to do with her own body AND the developing fetus have the option to decide it doesn't want to die? I like to consider myself pretty "progressive" overall, but I still keep equating abortion to "baby-killing." I know we can beat around the bush non-stop about when life truly begins---at conception, at birth, six months into development, when the zygote becomes fertilized, yada, yada, yada---but do we really know when the fetus has enough development to sense pain?
I also wonder about what must go through the woman's mind at some point later on in life with all of the "what ifs." Sure, a woman having an abortion at age 25 might not fully realize the levity of her decision, deciding she did at the time what was best for both her future and the unborn child, who may have been born into poverty or into an unsavory environment. However, if I were a woman who had an abortion I'd continuously ask myself:
1.) "What if I had given birth to that child and given it up for adoption?"
2.) "What if that child had the potential to grow into someone who would cure cancer, fight for civil rights, bring about world peace, etc.?"
3.) "Was I being selfish to deny my child the right to life simply because instead of keeping my legs shut I did what felt good at the time and got pregnant?"
4.) "What if I had taken birth control?"
5.) "What does the father truly want deep down inside?"
6.) "What will/do my friends/family/neighbors think of me?"
I could go on and on with how immeasurable the guilt would grow within me. I understand the whole "If you don't want an abortion then don't get one and shut up" argument, considering I use the same one myself to counter people who oppose same-sex relationships or...gasp...same-sex civil unions (thankfully their numbers are dwindling to just a few far right-wing yahoos), but in my particular example nobody gets hurt. In your example you're doing what's good for you, but is it always what's necessarily what's good for the baby? Think about it. What if your mothers had all chosen "It's my body. I'll do what I want?"
Paul, It takes 2 to tango. I am suprised at the double standard you speak about here. It's okay for men but women should "shut their legs'? It's a woman's responsibility for birth controls? Another double standard. Why aren't men taking birth control? Why is it always the woman's responsibilty? See my separate post for why women make that decision and what those opposed should be doing. As for the Mayor.. All I'll say is as Governor the constitution still applies...Separation of Church and State. Which is a very good thing.
Maybe those who say they want a say in the matter and those that choose the pro-life stance should spend more time preaching to all of the irresponsible men who believe birth control is a woman's responsibility.
Paul, It takes 2 to tango. I am suprised at the double standard you speak about here. It's okay for men but women should "shut their legs'? It's a woman's responsibility for birth controls? Another double standard. Why aren't men taking birth control? Why is it always the woman's responsibilty? See my separate post for why women make that decision and what those opposed should be doing. As for the Mayor.. All I'll say is as Governor the constitution still applies...Separation of Church and State. Which is a very good thing.
I'm very well aware that BOTH parties are ultimately responsible for a woman becoming impregnated, but ultimately it becomes the woman's decision on what to do, so she has the greater burden (and grief) to bear. A dude should keep his zipper up; a chick should keep her legs shut. Absent of that a man should wear a condom; a woman should be taking birth control. The man should "abort" before "fertilization", if you catch my drift. The woman should be more judicious on who she chooses to sleep with. Simple as that. There are MANY ways for both man and woman to avoid a pregnancy. As I said I fail to see how it's the fault of the fetus that it was brought into existence when if all of those aforementioned measures were taken it never would have happened. Isn't killing off the fetus punishing it for the mistakes committed by its parents?
Scranton Mayor Doherty discloses abortion beliefs - News - The Times-Tribune (http://www.scrantontimes.com/news/scranton_mayor_doherty_discloses_abortion_beliefs - broken link)
Whatever I believe on this issue is inconsequesential...A woman should have the right to choose. But certainly not late term unless her health is endangered.
Things to think about...Is it OK if the mother's life is at risk?
Is it OK , when in the future, we can identify genetic markers more accurately than now..and the baby has a terminal illness or deformity?
Is it OK, when they find genetic markers predisposing your child towards being gay?
The issue is very complicated and with Genome Mapping these decisions may become common place in the future?
Lastly...being guys...do any of us have this right to tell females what to do with their own bodies; because WE can NEVER understand what pregnancy etc. actually entails or how a mother actually feels?
Just some thoughts.......mind openers I call them. IMHO.
Whatever I believe on this issue is inconsequesential...A woman should have the right to choose. But certainly not late term unless her health is endangered.
Why draw any line at all? Is it less of a woman's "choice" than it was in the beginning?
Quote:
Things to think about...Is it OK if the mother's life is at risk?
If this were the case for the majority of abortions being performed I do not think there would be as much debate about it.
Quote:
Is it OK , when in the future, we can identify genetic markers more accurately than now..and the baby has a terminal illness or deformity?
Why not poll all the people you see with malformed hands, cerebral palsy, who were born blind, etc and see what they think..do they wish they had been aborted?
Quote:
Is it OK, when they find genetic markers predisposing your child towards being gay?
Do you wish your mom had aborted you?
Quote:
Lastly...being guys...do any of us have this right to tell females what to do with their own bodies; because WE can NEVER understand what pregnancy etc. actually entails or how a mother actually feels?
That's like saying that I as a woman have no idea what testosterone does to men's bodies and I should not be opposed to them raping women....
I bet this thread will be closed before the afternoon is out.
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.
There are MANY ways for both man and woman to avoid a pregnancy. As I said I fail to see how it's the fault of the fetus that it was brought into existence when if all of those aforementioned measures were taken it never would have happened. Isn't killing off the fetus punishing it for the mistakes committed by its parents? 
