Imagine N/A

[Richard]

Anyone here didn't ever want to be born? Draft into war time military service, horrible life threatening accidents, tragic medical complications or birth defects, abusive parents. Would such experiences make you wish you were never born?

Imagine 20 years from now talking with your friends saying, yeah, the only reason I'm alive is because I was born in South Dakota in that time after March 6, 2006 and before the appellate court ruling.

 

[Sonar5]

For those not in the know, South Dakota today took a step towards protecting life.

From:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060306/D8G6CE802.html

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The governor issued a written statement saying he expected a lengthy legal battle over the law, which, he said, would not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it.[/FONT]

Call it a get the ball rolling type of case....

And to answer your question, no I never had a thought like that.

But to expand on your comments, should we kill those who draft people into Military service?

Kill those doctors who cause medical complications or birth defects?

Kill all abusive parents?

Anyway, I wholeheartedly support this legislation as a start to end the killing of children.

I also am not a HYPOCRITE, as I oppose the death penalty, unlike some who oppose the death penalty on one hand and then are pro-killing when it comes to abortion.

 

[SCCutler]

Not commenting one way or t'other, but it has always seemed a conundrum that a substantial proportion of those whom I personally know who virulently oppose the death penalty, also favor ready access to abortions with equal vigor.

As for me, as I have grown older, many of the things which seemed so simple when I was younger, and less burdened by life experience, now seem less certain and very, very confusing.

And (to quote Forrest Gump) that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Sonar5]

Not commenting one way or t'other, but it has always seemed a conundrum that a substantial proportion of those whom I personally know who virulently oppose the death penalty, also favor ready access to abortions with equal vigor.

Yeppers, the hypocrisy is clearly abundant, and there is no defense IMHO.

How one can consciously oppose the death of one who murders another and had the choice in doing so, yet support the death of inocent children who had no choice except by the killing doctors and mothers. Oh yeah, the other person, the Father also has no choice.

It is one of the saddest commentaries on our society and is the ultimate human rights violation, IMHO.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I'm not a hypocrite either, I support both.

 

[Missa]

Then today is a sad day in South Dakota. When the religious right try to legislate their beliefs, ideals and morality onto everyone in the population. You say that life begins at conception. Prove it. Until a Fetus can survive with out feeding off my body it is a parasite, not independent life. This is what I believe. I find nothing distasteful about first term abortions, in most cases, anyone who was raped or otherwise should be able to make that decision in the first three months of a pregnancy. I find most second/third term abortions for the above reasons as an indication of an irresponsible woman (with the obvious exception of minor abused girls of childbearing age). Second/Third term abortions for the life of the mother and quality of life reasons are also acceptable. There is no good reason to bring a known severely challenged child into the world. Modern medicine has improved to the point where we keep an improperly formed fetus in the womb when the women’s body would have aborted the pregnancy, so if it can be proven that the fetus is defective why let it be born? It unnatural to bring these fetuses to term and God would have aborted the fetus if we would have let him. Just so you know this is coming from an almost aborted person. My older sister got the measles when my mom was pregnant with me. If she had contracted the measles there was an extremely high likelihood of birth defects. The decision was already made, obviously mom never got the measles.

I support the right to die as well. Again modern medicine keeps people alive for much longer then natural and why force people to suffer? We treat our animals better then we treat our elders. It is us, not God that force this suffering by our use of modern medicine to keep people alive who would have otherwise died.

It’s not that I think we should stand by and do nothing; we should help where we can but we also need to make responsible decisions when everything we do can not be enough to ensure a quality life.

The most ridiculous pro-life argument I have ever heard is that we shouldn’t play God with life. When the reality is that we do it everyday to unnaturally extend and support a lower form of life in the modern hospitals around the world.

Now, call me what you like, but abortion and the death penalty are only joined together as one issue by the pro life sect. The death penalty is not about supporting or not supporting life. It’s about supporting and ensuring justice in a legal system. If you are going to take someone’s life for rape or murder you best be sure, in the absence of emotion, that you have the right person. Once you take a life you can not give it back if you find out you were wrong. If you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt then I support the death penalty, but our legal system is administered by flawed people and is therefore flawed. Supporting the death penalty in a legal system is to support the taking of a small percentage of innocent people’s lives because only God can be 100% sure 100% of the time.

Missa
-let the bad rep flow in! Who needs to be popular?

 

[gkainz]

-let the bad rep flow in! Who needs to be popular?

Missa, while you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, I feel that you presented your points clearly, and, for the most part, without inflammatory or derogatory comments. Thanks for sharing. I feel it would be quite unfair for someone to hand out bad rep to you for posting your beliefs as you did.

 

[poadeleted3]

I am ecstatic over this ruling.

Abortion = killing children. Those who argue that a fetus isn't a child because of it's age are, IMHO, deluding themselves. If left to grow, it will become an adult. If it's not viable, the body itself will usually terminate the pregnancy, as my wife and I know, to our great pain. Saying it's ok to kill a child because of it's age is indefensible to me. A one year old cannot support itself, should it be ok to kill it also? A six month old is still feeding from the breast, a "parasite." Using the argument that such a child isn't able to support itself, it should be perfectly legal to throw the child in the trash, or drive a railroad spike into it's head and scramble it's brains, similar to what is done with partial birth abortions should the child degrade the parents "quality of life," become an inconvenience. We already permit the murder of children after inducing birth, on the facetious argument that because it hasn't emerged from the birth canal it hasn't been born. Utterly barbaric.

"Right to choose?" How many of those murdered children have been given the right to choose? Is there an argument that they have somehow "chosen" to be dismembered, ripped apart limb from limb? The woman has the right to choose whether or not to engage in intercourse, whether or not to use easily available and cheap protection. Once that choice has been made, the couple may have to deal with the consequences of creating a human life. They should NOT have the right to choose to murder children for convenience, which is exactly what the vast majority of abortions are.

There is no moral difference between murdering a child, and aborting a doctor who performs abortions that I can see. With the notable exception of the fact that the child is innocent, and the abortion doctor has the blood of perhaps thousands of butchered children on his/her hands. I certainly do not support killing doctors, nor can I see a valid, moral reason to support slaughtering children.

My two cents. As Missa said, let the reps flow.

 

[Sonar5]

Then today is a sad day in South Dakota. When the religious right try to legislate their beliefs, ideals and morality onto everyone in the population.

I actually consider this a Human Rights issue more than a religious one. Also your analogy about the far right linking the two is inaccurate.

There are many hypocrites on the right as well who advocate the death penalty and then oppose abortion.

This is about human rights more trhan religion, IMHO. religion gets the juices flowing on the topic, but it is the life issue that I have a problem with. If thsi was about choice, the father should get a choice too. He is responsible for the money side if the woman chooses to keep the baby, but has no say if she decides to KILL the baby. That is wrong. It takes two people to make life. That is a fact.

Someday, abortion will rightly be banned, as will the death penalty. Both are sores on society as a whole, no mater the religion, or culture.

I feel sad for those who openly support the killing of children. But I can't understand those who call others fanatic for supporting life. What is so wrong with wanting to support life. That should be a natural choice.

For those that say they support killing by abortion, and then support ending life because of birth defects, why not kill all the retarded or end stage cancer patients too. Why let them live, they're only delaying the inevitable.

Killing children is wrong, you talk about a child not being able to live in a body without support from the mother.

You said:

Until a Fetus can survive with out feeding off my body it is a parasite, not independent life.

But wait, unless a mother goes on a hunger strike, simply existing in a normal dietary way will not kill the child nor the mother in most cases. It takes an active deed on the mothers side to kill a child conceived inside of her due to the genes of two people, the Mother and Father. If left alone, that baby would be born in most cases successfully. BTW - The proof of that is civilization as a whole for thousands of years.

I feel sad for you that you feel the decision to kill a child is only a woman's choice.

Do you also feel that a fther should have the right to tell a women she has to get an abortion?

Do you feel a man should have to financially support a child if the owman refuses to get an abortion that he wants to avoid the neccesity for paying for that child until the age of majority?

Do you feel a man should get a voice, or hey what the hack it's only his sperm, and that he contributes little so gets nothing.

Face it, life is a human rights issue no matter how you try to spin it as a religious one.

The Hypocrisy continues, and there is nothing that will end it except the banning of abortion by all 50 states after Roe V Wade is reversed by SCOTUS.

And yes, I also have been on the side of a death of a child in the womb. My wife and I experienced the death of our third child in the womb. It was a boy and was named Patrick. Upon birth he had five fingers, five toes, two ears, a nose, and two eyes. You can't tell me when he was born that he was a parasite. He was a child of mine who died in his mothers womb. He was also baptized after birth.

But I see where you are coming from, and it is not a nice place telling those who lost a life that their child was a parasite. And I am willing to bet if you know anyone who has had a miscarriage, that you have not told them congratulations on your body disposing of the parasite. Those that espouse views like those you listed above really have no compassion for those who grieve when they lose a child. But I imagine people that think like that have an excuse for that scenario as well.

 

[Frank Browne]

Then today is a sad day in South Dakota. When the religious right try to legislate their beliefs, ideals and morality onto everyone in the population. You say that life begins at conception. Prove it.

Once the egg has been fertilized and has all 46 chromosomes it cannot be anything other that human. Once the egg begins to grow it is alive, as opposed not growing or dead. Therefore human life. Just MHO.

 

[Missa]

Missa, while you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, I feel that you presented your points clearly, and, for the most part, without inflammatory or derogatory comments. Thanks for sharing. I feel it would be quite unfair for someone to hand out bad rep to you for posting your beliefs as you did.

Thank you, No one so far has felt so disapproving of my comments to give me negative rep and I may just be paranoid due to the flame problems on other boards. It is difficult to take the inflammation out of such a hot topic and I’m sure I was less then totally efficient at it.

I respect everyone's unalienable right to their own views, beliefs and morals. However I think we step over the line when we try to legislate those beliefs and morals on the population at large. There are many things I find wrong and distasteful but I do not believe in legislating them to others.

Missa

 

[AirBaker]

This is one debate I stay out of

 

[Frank Browne]

Thank you, No one so far has felt so disapproving of my comments to give me negative rep and I may just be paranoid due to the flame problems on other boards. It is difficult to take the inflammation out of such a hot topic and I’m sure I was less then totally efficient at it.

I respect everyone's unalienable right to their own views, beliefs and morals. However I think we step over the line when we try to legislate those beliefs and morals on the population at large. There are many things I find wrong and distasteful but I do not believe in legislating them to others.

Missa

The idea of giving someone negative rep points simply becaused I disagreed with them has never crossed my mind. While I do disagree with you on this topic, I believe it is possible to discuss the issue in a reasonable fashion. Having said that, would you not agree that virtually all laws against such activities as theft, murder, etc are in a way, legislating morality?

 

[ausrere]

The woman has the right to choose whether or not to engage in intercourse, whether or not to use easily available and cheap protection. Once that choice has been made, the couple may have to deal with the consequences of creating a human life. They should NOT have the right to choose to murder children for convenience, which is exactly what the vast majority of abortions are.

But the ruling in SD doesn't give women who have chosen NOT to engage in intercourse the right to abort a fetus that was created as a result of rape or incest. I disagree with the ruling period, but the fact they don't even give a woman who has been brutally raped the option of aborting a fetus she didn't ask for in the first place makes it even worse.

I'm with Missa.. she said it much better than I could.

 

[Sonar5]

This is one debate I stay out of

Why?

It is one of life itself, the reason for being, and of common sense human rights.

You can debate the topic. It is one that is not going to go away, but will come to an understanding sometime in our future. You have a responsibility to vote imho, and you can opine either way if you have rational thoughts on the subject.

 

[ScottM]

Why?

Well for one reason I believe there is nothing left to discuss on this topic. All of our minds are made up. Right now it is legal, as this case progesses through the courts there will also be legaslative chances to voice one's concerns via the ballot box and that is where I will focus my attention.

 

[gkainz]

Thank you, No one so far has felt so disapproving of my comments to give me negative rep and I may just be paranoid due to the flame problems on other boards. It is difficult to take the inflammation out of such a hot topic and I’m sure I was less then totally efficient at it.

I respect everyone's unalienable right to their own views, beliefs and morals. However I think we step over the line when we try to legislate those beliefs and morals on the population at large. There are many things I find wrong and distasteful but I do not believe in legislating them to others.

Missa

However, it is my opinion that all law must have its basis in morality. The difference of opinion stems from what the rule of morality is based on. In my opinion, they stem from the biblical 10 commandments. Laws based on moral relativism have an unstable foundation.

 

[Missa]

I feel sad for you that you feel the decision to kill a child is only a woman's choice.

I see you like reading things into what other people say. The only time I even implied it was a womans choice was in the case of Rape, Should I read into your comments that you think the Rapest should have a say?

Missa

 

[Sonar5]

The idea of giving someone negative rep points simply becaused I disagreed with them has never crossed my mind. While I do disagree with you on this topic, I believe it is possible to discuss the issue in a reasonable fashion. Having said that, would you not agree that virtually all laws against such activities as theft, murder, etc are in a way, legislating morality?

Except I don't consider calling life a parasite as reasonable. I see that as a mentality frought with problems.

I wonder if these folks run around calling all their friends when they have miscarriages, and say congratulations on your body disposing of a parasite.

And of course we legislate morality, as it is a function of society as a whole.

But life itself should be protected. You always hear about the women having a choice on this issue.

In most abortion cases, they did have a choice. The woman and the father of the baby chose to get pregnant by having sex. That was both of their choices, but in this case, only the choice of the father is removed after the act. Well It took two, but when you run off the logic of protetcting life, one will use all types of rationale to excuse the case for killing a child.

Why after making that choice shouldn't the mother have to abide by her already chosen decision?

Did she and the father already choose when they had sex?

I say yes.

 

[poadeleted3]

But the ruling in SD doesn't give women who have chosen NOT to engage in intercourse the right to abort a fetus that was created as a result of rape or incest. I disagree with the ruling period, but the fact they don't even give a woman who has been brutally raped the option of aborting a fetus she didn't ask for in the first place makes it even worse.

I'm with Missa.. she said it much better than I could.

I disagree with the idea that rape is justification for murdering a child. The woman can put the child up for adoption, but I cannot justify allowing a rapist to create two victims instead of one. I understand that the woman will have to carry a child she never wanted, and that will increase her pain, but such a thing should serve to increase the offenders penalty, not punish a child who has done no wrong. And such abortions are a very small percentage of the ones performed. Nearly all are performed for convenience.

 

[Sonar5]

I see you like reading things into what other people say. The only time I even implied it was a womans choice was in the case of Rape, Should I read into your comments that you think the Rapest should have a say?

Missa

You're right, I should have asked you about that first. I apologize.

So here goes.

Should a father have a right to deny a woman get an abortion? And if not, why not?

 

[AirBaker]

This, along with other HOT issues, tug on people's emotions. The problem I have is that our government often tries to make laws on issues they almost cannot stop. Regardless of your political views, there is something your party feels should be done about X and therefore requires a law or legislation.

I guess I feel that there are other priorities to be dealt with first. Then again, being somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on this issue is probably why.

 

[poadeleted3]

Well for one reason I believe there is nothing left to discuss on this topic. All of our minds are made up. Right now it is legal, as this case progesses through the courts there will also be legaslative chances to voice one's concerns via the ballot box and that is where I will focus my attention.

And the ballot box is where the issue should have been settled in the past, not by Supreme Court justices who violated their oath of office to create laws and rights not found in the Constitution.

Not all states will ban abortions. But I do believe Roe v Wade will be overturned, as it should be. The job of judges is to interpret the laws as written, not write laws.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

As Spike has said, there are no easy answers to this issue.

If one goes back and reads the court cases leading up to Roe v. Wade and the actual full text of the U.S. Supreme Court case, there were some terrible situations and inequities. The legislatures wouldn't address these; eventually, the court did.

I used to discuss the facts that lead up to this but found so many people so emotional about it they couldn't deal with the facts; so, I quit. Many people that feel very strongly that Roe v. Wade is wrong have absolutely no idea what was going on when that decision was made. I'm not taking sides, but I'm not for people changing the law when they don't understand all the facts that lead up to the change.

How many people have actually read the case law leading up to that?

Does everyone know that abortion is always available? The people most affected are the poor that can't afford to go where ever it is available.

How many malformed fetuses does it take to legalize something? Anyone read about Falidimide, how many women were taking it and what the consequences were and still are today?

Women and children were dying or being greatly harmed by folks that performed illegal abortions, and those people are always there.

Before we go jumping into things emotionally, let's try to weigh the full consequences and understand why what was done actually took place. Once you understand all of that, others will respect your opinions a lot more.

Best,

Dave

 

[SteveR]

You say that life begins at conception. Prove it. Until a Fetus can survive with out feeding off my body it is a parasite, not independent life.

Last week my brother and his wife had a beautiful baby boy. He most definately cannot survive without feeding off of or being fed by his mother. He is definately not independent, left alone he would be dead in a few days. So I guess he is a parasite, and throwing him in the trash tomorrow would be completely acceptable?

 

[Sonar5]

I guess I feel that there are other priorities to be dealt with first. Then again, being somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on this issue is probably why.

Other priorities. Like what, deaths of servicemen in Iraq?

Do you know how many abortions by killing are carried out in this country every year?

Some say there are about 850,000+ killings a year in this country.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

If 850,000 people died in Iraq, you would think that was a priority. But 850,000 killed in a year somehow doesn't rise to a priority.

I don't think people can grasp how many are killed each year by abortion. maybe because the numbers aren't thrown around by the press as much as other issues of the day.

So I would ask what would you consider higher priorities and why?

 

[Frank Browne]

Except I don't consider calling life a parasite as reasonable. I see that as a mentality frought with problems.

I was a bit taken aback with the characterazation of a human fetus as a "parasite", but my point was that I wouldn't give Missa a neg rep for her opinion. I would simply disagree with her and try to argue for my beliefs.

 

[Sonar5]

I was a bit taken aback with the characterazation of a human fetus as a "parasite", but my point was that I wouldn't give Missa a neg rep for her opinion. I would simply disagree with her and try to argue for my beliefs.

Well, I haven't given anyone any reps either. For now, I don't plan to. If I have something to write, I'll add it to the thread.

I have recieved 5 so far, three positive, two funny.... Got a good chuckle out of them too. Two of the positive ones were signed, the negative ones were not. Now that is also funny.

This was the first rep I received here. Mild Threat perhaps????

The whole scoreboard thing is stupid. Don't start that junk here

I wonder if it is from someone who hasn't a clue as to its meaning or intent or where it originated from? Kind of made me think, or else what?

Too funny..... Well, they leave them, I'll post them.

 

[AirBaker]

Why?

It is one of life itself, the reason for being, and of common sense human rights.

You can debate the topic. It is one that is not going to go away, but will come to an understanding sometime in our future. You have a responsibility to vote imho, and you can opine either way if you have rational thoughts on the subject.

Along the same lines that Scott mentioned right after your post. Personally, I believe in "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice". I don't think it is a pretty ugly thing, but I don't feel I can force my beliefs upon someone else.

Further, IMO, neither side really puts on a logical argument for me.

(Oversimplified)
Pro-life: It is murder
Pro-Choice: It is my body

If this was brought to a vote where I had to choose sides, I would vote differently on how I felt that day. Do I feel that today we need more rules in our society or do I feel that we are lacking order in the world?

Should a father have a right to deny a woman get an abortion? And if not, why not?

Along those lines, I think that the father has a right to the child. I feel that if you want to keep all things equal, HE should have the option to care for the kiddo. Ladies, don't hate me for that.

 

[Sonar5]

Along those lines, I think that the father has a right to the child. I feel that if you want to keep all things equal, HE should have the option to care for the kiddo. Ladies, don't hate me for that.

That is just it. In the majority of case studies, both chose to have sex. They did choose, and they should have to accept that responsibility, only some want that responsibility in one direction, and that is flawed, IMHO.

People that support the killing, (and I use killing, because that is what it is), anyway, people always like to bring up rape and incest. But rarely talk about the percentages where that applies. From what I have read, it is very small indeed.

And what about those who had an abortion, and then later regretted it. What about the psychological problmes brought on by their guilt of killing another human being.

And yes, the analogy is correct where IF one considers one a parasite if they cannot survive on their own.

Can a Mother kill the infant or leave them to die once born by not giving them food, or caring for them. We call that killing, and they are prosecuted for it as a crime all the time.

And if a child is a parasite fathom this scenario, since the pro killing crowd loves scenarios....

If a mother turns left into an abortion clinic, is hit on the side by a drunk driver, and the mother and baby is killed, why are there laws that allow the perpatrator to be tried for killing both of them if one is only a parasite?

 

[AirBaker]

Other priorities. Like what, deaths of servicemen in Iraq?

So I would ask what would you consider higher priorities and why?

I've got to get into work, but I'll get back to this.

 

[wsuffa]

Other priorities. Like what, deaths of servicemen in Iraq?

Joe, you've been quite consistent that you are opposed to both abortion and the death penalty as a human rights issue. If I read you correctly, your view is that killing others is wrong.

I would be curious to learn how you stand on the topic of war. War results in killing of others. Would you place war in the same category of abortion or the death penalty?

 

[Greebo]

I think one of the major differences between abortion as killing, and war and the death penalty as killing is the question of helplessness.

An infant/fetus has no choice in the matter. It didn't ask to be concieved, it doesn't get a say in the matter.

The death row inmate (99% of the time) deliberately took an action that led to his presence there.

War - war has its collateral damage (ie: innocent casualties) - but there are justifiable reasons for war. When one fights a war, death is a question of numbers. Take WWII: 6+ million (iirc the number) jews and gypsies and other people died at the hands of monsters. We certainly killed civilians in ending that war. Was it justified?


Now, an official, moderator type note:
People feel strongly about abortion. If you choose to participate in this discussion, please grow a slightly thicker skin for the duration of the thread, and remember responsibility #2.

People have responded strongly to terms like "parasite" and "killing", terms that have come from different viewpoints on this issue.

Before hitting the "Report bad post" button about either "parasite" or "killing", ask yourself, if you will hit it for one, will you hit it for the other?

If the answer is that you won't, then don't. Strong convictions bring out strong language.

That doesn't make it personal, and that doesn't, by itself, make it trolling.

Thank you.

 

[Sonar5]

Joe, you've been quite consistent that you are opposed to both abortion and the death penalty as a human rights issue. If I read you correctly, your view is that killing others is wrong.

I would be curious to learn how you stand on the topic of war. War results in killing of others. Would you place war in the same category of abortion or the death penalty?

Good questions, and I am happy to address them as best I can Bill.

I wasn't always consistent. When I was younger, I didn't fully understand or grasp the life issues. I used to be in favor of the death penalty, but I didn't understand the issues involved or the alternatives offered. I guess i realized I was in the wrong on that about 15 years or so ago.

As for war, yes I look at it differently. I see a disconnect once a person is caught, they should be imprisoned and not killed, since their behavior can be controlled at that point. I try to use logic and common sense here.

So when it comes to war, people still have a choice on both sides. Usually it is done to prevent behavior by the other side, yes?

So it depends on the war. Sure it can come down to just cause stature.

So let's take an example of Iraq. I don't support the killing of those in our custody, I don't like it when anyone is killed, but I understand that if someone is trying to bring harm to you, me, or our children, that appropriate action can be taken to prevent them.

Libya came to its senses, and look, no war.

Afghanistan chose to harbor those who kill, and reaped consequences. The result is that elections have taken place, there is now a government, and yes people are being killed, but hey, people die here every day too.

You can't control everyone who wants to do others harm.

In Iraq, it is a United Nations operation that chose to give Iraq choices to disarm and prevent the killings that that regime has carried out or threatened to carry out on its neighbors and the support of terorrists. (remember Iraq paid families of terrorists 25,000, and those terrorists killed United States citrizens in those bombings in Israel.) They also have had elections and formed a government. But it takes time to learn freedom. Even our country took years to form a Constitution.

So logically what is one to do in a case for war. Certain steps need to be taken since IMHO, 1% of the worlds population is just plain nuts, and needs to be controlled in order to keep society and thus civilization sustained.

The means to achieve that control can come in many opportunities, and yes, one of them is war. I don't like it, but I understand it. And if some terrorist wants to try to kill others, and the only way to stop them is by killing them, that is a just cause by me.

However like a murderer, it ends when the perp is caught. Give them life in prison under control, and let them think about their deeds. That is the high road of a civilization and one that society for the most part will accept, IMHO.

And I hope someday that our country comes to that realization.

Sorry for the long answer, but it is a complex question.

 

[Sonar5]

Now, an official, moderator type note:
People feel strongly about abortion. If you choose to participate in this discussion, please grow a slightly thicker skin for the duration of the thread, and remember responsibility #2.

People have responded strongly to terms like "parasite" and "killing", terms that have come from different viewpoints on this issue.

Before hitting the "Report bad post" button about either "parasite" or "killing", ask yourself, if you will hit it for one, will you hit it for the other?

If the answer is that you won't, then don't. Strong convictions bring out strong language.

That doesn't make it personal, and that doesn't, by itself, make it trolling.

Thank you.

I use the word killing, because that is a form of the word used in the case at hand, Roe V Wade. I purposefully don't call it murder to keep the discourse to the level of law and fact.

Parasite however is found no where in that case to my knowledge, but I didn't hit the report button anyway.

Nor did the person who used the term ever come back and address its use or other arguments against its use.

 

[ausrere]

If thsi was about choice, the father should get a choice too. He is responsible for the money side if the woman chooses to keep the baby, but has no say if she decides to KILL the baby. That is wrong. It takes two people to make life. That is a fact.

I agree that the father of child conceived during consensual sex SHOULD have 50% of the say in what happens to that fetus and the child once it's born. I've never agreed with the argument that a woman carries the child in her body alone and therefore should have all the say in whether it's carried to term or not. I do have a problem with the woman having no say in the decision at all.

In my idea of a perfect world (on this topic anyway), those who don't believe in abortion, shouldn't have one. Those that do, should be provided that option and I'd have no problem with a law requiring consent from both the male and female involved (in consensual cases) before an abortion is performed.

But I never expect to change anyone's mind on this subject. The only thing I've ever seen change that is when someone is put in the situation and they have to make that decision for themselves. Some stick to their original beliefs, some suddenly realize it's not all that easy of a decision either way.

 

[AirBaker]

But I never expect to change anyone's mind on this subject. The only thing I've ever seen change that is when someone is put in the situation and they have to make that decision for themselves. Some stick to their original beliefs, some suddenly realize it's not all that easy of a decision either way.

Yet another reason, I TRY not to engage in this debate. Since I've already been proven wrong that I don't get in the middle of such issues.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I have participated in this debate personally twice as a father/potential father. On one occasion the pregnancy was terminated, the other time it continued to term. In both cases, the emotional stake involved was huge. My personal views on the moral implications of the matter have been fluid over time and circumstance, but at no time have I ever thought it's something the government has any right to get involved in.

 

[AirBaker]

I have participated in this debate personally twice as a father/potential father. On one occasion the pregnancy was terminated, the other time it continued to term. In both cases, the emotional stake involved was huge. My personal views on the moral implications of the matter have been fluid over time and circumstance, but at no time have I ever thought it's something the government has any right to get involved in.

I agree Ken.

Woudl be interesting to overlap this thread with that of the political compass one. Simply as a sociology experiment.

 

[AirBaker]

At least my post counter is increasing through this thread.