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.
What's irrational about the abortion issue is the fact that it has been allowed to be incorporated into politics. It has become a major topic of debate in all the races for President, Senator, Governor, and just about every other office. The fact of the matter is that abortion is a PRIVATE matter, and shouldn't have been allowed to be a political issue. And while the act of abortion may be morally wrong in most cases, it is something which should be kept behind closed doors (like sex, or any personal family matter). The final decision should be left up to the woman, her family, and her doctor ... not some Bible thumping politico.
Also, which is more wrong: a woman terminating a pregnancy with her own money, or a woman having baby after baby that she can't afford & expecting the TAXPAYERS to keep subsidizing them???
What's irrational about the abortion issue is the fact that it has been allowed to be incorporated into politics. It has become a major topic of debate in all the races for President, Senator, Governor, and just about every other office. The fact of the matter is that abortion is a PRIVATE matter, and shouldn't have been allowed to be a political issue. And while the act of abortion may be morally wrong in most cases, it is something which should be kept behind closed doors (like sex, or any personal family matter). The final decision should be left up to the woman, her family, and her doctor ... not some Bible thumping politico.
Also, which is more wrong: a woman terminating a pregnancy with her own money, or a woman having baby after baby that she can't afford & expecting the TAXPAYERS to keep subsidizing them???
Again... it depends on your viewpoint. I firmly believe that a fetus is life and ending that life is an imposition on their liberty, which is the government's job to protect. I'm not asking you to agree with my definition of when life begins, only to agree that if it is indeed a life, it's not an issue of privacy any more than abusing your children behind closed doors is an issue of privacy.
On the second question, both are wrong... but I only see one a punishable offense. I doubt many who oppose abortions are in favor of welfare, but I could be wrong...
Well just because I don't see it your way doesn't make my opinions any less "factual" as you claim yours to be. I have a personal choice in the matter but that is my personal choice AND opinion. Your opinion may be different but I wouldn't force you to accept my opinion or "facts" under the threat of punishment. The talk about logical or illogical debate is completely MOOT. I don't think it is the government's business in enforcing a law based on "opinion". As it is now, the law is being enforced according to one opinion of which you are happy with, but the fact that opinions can change means laws can change. There is no right or wrong to your opinion but don't use the federal government to force your opinion and "facts" on everyone else. The government should stay out the business of society and worry about managing the national defense, protecting our rights, improving our country.... NOT improving our society as we are all perfectly capable of doing this on our own..
Well just because I don't see it your way doesn't make my opinions any less "factual" as you claim yours to be. I have a personal choice in the matter but that is my personal choice AND opinion. Your opinion may be different but I wouldn't force you to accept my opinion or "facts" under the threat of punishment. The talk about logical or illogical debate is completely MOOT. I don't think it is the government's business in enforcing a law based on "opinion". As it is now, the law is being enforced according to one opinion of which you are happy with, but the fact that opinions can change means laws can change. There is no right or wrong to your opinion but don't use the federal government to force your opinion and "facts" on everyone else. The government should stay out the business of society and worry about managing the national defense, protecting our rights, improving our country.... NOT improving our society as we are all perfectly capable of doing this on our own..
An abortion is the killing of an innocent being. End of story.
Don't want a baby? be responsible, keep your pants on.
SO !! Trying to tell people how to LIVE, are you??
Seriously, though, abortion (which I'm against), simply has no 'parallel' to which one can make an analogy. It has to do with the unique and very real difference between the sexes (men don't get pregnant), as well as the UNIQUE situation of one "individual" quite literally being dependent for his very existence on what ANOTHER individual does with "Her" body. There's no comparable situation in the human experience. We DO "tell people what they can do with their bodies" (for example, not to put heroin into them)....we DO require people to "do things" for others (for example, a parent is REQUIRED to feed a chld). But there's really no close parallel between pregnancy, the unborn child, and the 'rights' of two separate individuals (mother and child). The issue stands on its own, and is unique.
We often deny the 'personhood" of the unborn---some of us, right up into the last weeks before delivery ("it's not a PERSON, it's a FETUS")--yet, at the same time, we vigorously defend the 'autonomy' and the right to 'live', of a hopelessly terminally-ill nonegenarian "vegetable". Long after all MEANINGFUL life has irretrievably been 'lost', murder charges would STILL be leveled at anyone who 'pulls the plug"...we "can't do that", because this bedridden 'body' in a coma, is a PERSON.
How come 99% pro-life and pro-choice people cannot make a logical or rational argument?
I think they do make logical and rational arguments - it is simply that they cannot find a compromise. The two sides can't find common ground to argue on, because one side sees it as a moral/criminal issue, and another side sees it as a regulatory/"scope of government" issue.
I remember this was discussed at length in a college philosophy class I took. This was used as an example of an issue where compromise just isn't possible.
I don't believe in abortion but I don't feel I have a right to tell anyone else what to do.
And that still comes down to the same underlying principle that's been discussed. If someone sees an unborn child as life, and life that deserves liberty, an attempt to take away that life becomes our business.
You don't have the right to tell a murderer not to kill someone, even though it is morally just. But we give the government the power to punish those who are found guilty of murder by a jury of their peers.
I don't believe in abortion but I don't feel I have a right to tell anyone else what to do.
Of course you do. And you do so all the time.
You tell people to come over and look at this interesting seashell you found. You tell your friends to read a book you like or see a movie you enjoyed. If a waiter drops your food on the floor, you tell him to bring you another plate.
If someone left their keys in the car, and you saw it, wouldn't you tell them not to forget to take them?
If someone were about the cross the street and didn't see a truck coming, wouldn't you shout to them to stop?
If someone pointed a gun at you, wouldn't you say "Don't shoot"?
Don't you express you opinions on this forum frequently, and urge folks to think one way or another, or to do or not to do things?
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.