I'm one to believe that abortion is rather gray...
On one hand we have morality...
On the other we have a population of kids being brought up in a world of institution at the expense of tax payers to whom have health problems as it is by sleeping only 3 hours a night wondering if they're going to be living on the street the next day let alone a month or year(s) later...
My question focuses on whether or not the abortion issue should be held to be secular or should be ridiculed of religious entity...
I was in a recent discussion with Accountable in the "Republicrats Meet with Evangelicals" thread from which I did not want to derail the subject...
The conversation is as follows...
Accountable;955602 wrote: Q: at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stupid non-answer. Obviously he was ready to be asked when does LIFE begin -- so ready that he didn't even hear the actual question posed. So taken in context it comes out:
Q: As potential President of the United States, at what point do you think the government (over which you would preside) should grant to babies the rights of humans?
A: That is above my pay grade. (Obama)
Our country was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," and so that equality cannot be granted. So the question can only have one answer in this country, no matter what the pay grade. Babies get human rights at the moment of creation.
K.Snyder;956385 wrote: Obama answered the question...
He specifically said that abortion is a choice that should be made by ones own morale obligation...He made it be known that he felt the majority of women to whom have abortions do not make the decision to have an abortion casually implying quite clearly that it's a matter of pro-choice...
I don't see how you've missed it...
Accountable;956393 wrote: Sure he said all those things, none of which addressed the question.
The question was "at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"
K.Snyder;956404 wrote: His telling you it were a matter of pro-choice blatantly illustrates that he feels it's a decision better left to the given circumstance...
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that he hadn't addressed it...It doesn't have to be exactly black and white on this issue...
There's without a doubt a concern given both virtues dependent upon either saying specifically that a child has human rights at conception or birth...
Accountable;956408 wrote: He dodged the question. He did not address the child's right at all. It's an issue a US President should be able to answer.
ETA: Just because you like the person doesn't make his answer right.
My response to this would be that Obama voiced quite clearly that the baby gets human rights upon the decision of those to whom partake in any given abortion with extreme emphasis on the fact that not only is it the peoples to whom consent to having the abortion but those to whom aid in it's inception are just as responsible...His having the responsibility of leading the nation of the United States of America has no bearing on his personal ideologies pertaining to "at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" because the stance of pro-choice is just that,..pro-choice...It's not Obama having to parent the entire population of abandoned children...
Just because you don't like the person doesn't make his answer wrong...:yh_bigsmi...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But responsible is the key word in retrospect to in which context it should be used...
So the poll asks...
"Do you feel that abortion should be pro-choice, illegal, or do some of you feel that it is immoral yet see the potential of a social concern upon abortion being illegal by virtue of even further over burdened orphanages?...I would go as far to say that upon the prohibition of abortion orphanage populations would increase by over 300% upon any society setting the precedent...
Abortion poll - part 3
Abortion poll - part 3
I believe it's personal choice. I doubt anyone would ever want to be in the position of having to make such a choice, but the fact is, people are. Is it crueller to kill something that isn't wanted before it has nerves and a brain or crueller to force people who aren't ready or equipped to be good parents into having babies?
The ideal option is that everyone use birth control, but occasionally, it fails. Fact of life. Adoption is a solution, but tends to be pretty painful for all involved. I really admire anyone that can give up a baby in order for it to have a better life.
On a lighter note, I've been wondering when I could use this! Gotta love Monty Python:D
The ideal option is that everyone use birth control, but occasionally, it fails. Fact of life. Adoption is a solution, but tends to be pretty painful for all involved. I really admire anyone that can give up a baby in order for it to have a better life.
On a lighter note, I've been wondering when I could use this! Gotta love Monty Python:D
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
k.snyder;956470 wrote: just Because You Don't Like The Person Doesn't Make His Answer Wrong...:yh_bigsmi...:
:wah:
:wah:
Abortion poll - part 3
Pinky;956485 wrote: I believe it's personal choice. I doubt anyone would ever want to be in the position of having to make such a choice, but the fact is, people are. Is it crueller to kill something that isn't wanted before it has nerves and a brain or crueller to force people who aren't ready or equipped to be good parents into having babies?
The ideal option is that everyone use birth control, but occasionally, it fails. Fact of life. Adoption is a solution, but tends to be pretty painful for all involved. I really admire anyone that can give up a baby in order for it to have a better life.
On a lighter note, I've been wondering when I could use this! Gotta love Monty Python:D
Absolutely...
Worse being never having had to think about it until that time comes only to have to make such a decision...
To me it shouldn't have to be contemplated but I say this with extreme emphasis on the fact that I completely empathize with women having to make such a decision knowing she'd be the only one, without exactly justifying the acts preluding to the point of conception...
As I've said,..I see it as rather gray considering I know I'd raise my own kid beknownst to satisfactory yet know the percentages and know that it could very well lead to extreme social issues as well as health issues...Lets not forget the potential of another wide spread plague...Without trying to induce a forum wide panic...
The ideal option is that everyone use birth control, but occasionally, it fails. Fact of life. Adoption is a solution, but tends to be pretty painful for all involved. I really admire anyone that can give up a baby in order for it to have a better life.
On a lighter note, I've been wondering when I could use this! Gotta love Monty Python:D
Absolutely...
Worse being never having had to think about it until that time comes only to have to make such a decision...
To me it shouldn't have to be contemplated but I say this with extreme emphasis on the fact that I completely empathize with women having to make such a decision knowing she'd be the only one, without exactly justifying the acts preluding to the point of conception...
As I've said,..I see it as rather gray considering I know I'd raise my own kid beknownst to satisfactory yet know the percentages and know that it could very well lead to extreme social issues as well as health issues...Lets not forget the potential of another wide spread plague...Without trying to induce a forum wide panic...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
Pinky;956485 wrote: Adoption is a solution, but tends to be pretty painful for all involved.
...
...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;956511 wrote: Absolutely...
Worse being never having had to think about it until that time comes only to have to make such a decision...
To me it shouldn't have to be contemplated but I say this with extreme emphasis on the fact that I completely empathize with women having to make such a decision knowing she'd be the only one, without exactly justifying the acts preluding to the point of conception...
As I've said,..I see it as rather gray considering I know I'd raise my own kid beknownst to satisfactory yet know the percentages and know that it could very well lead to extreme social issues as well as health issues...Lets not forget the potential of another wide spread plague...Without trying to induce a forum wide panic...
Well, I know that if I'd happened to get pregnant when I was younger, I definitely wouldn't have gone through with it. After seeing cousins and friends get pregnant at an early age, I knew exactly what the score was, and I wouldn't have wanted any of it. Being a single mum in a bedsit living on benefits was never part of my plan. I think those that do it are pretty brave, but not for me.
My best mate got pregnant when she was fifteen, her mum sent her to some home and she was made to give up her child. After that, she went on to have another six kids in an unhappy marriage because she says she was filling the gap left by her first-born. She also underwent an abortion for reasons that i won't disclose here. She says the abortion was traumatic, but going through labour and giving up her child haunts her to this day.
This is just my opinion, and lots won't like it, but there are enough idiots popping out kids for the extra money to keep the world going. The human race isn't going to die out because a few people decide that it's the wrong time or circumstances for them to have children. If abortion was illegal, there would be a lot more abandoned babies and unwanted kids. What then?
Worse being never having had to think about it until that time comes only to have to make such a decision...
To me it shouldn't have to be contemplated but I say this with extreme emphasis on the fact that I completely empathize with women having to make such a decision knowing she'd be the only one, without exactly justifying the acts preluding to the point of conception...
As I've said,..I see it as rather gray considering I know I'd raise my own kid beknownst to satisfactory yet know the percentages and know that it could very well lead to extreme social issues as well as health issues...Lets not forget the potential of another wide spread plague...Without trying to induce a forum wide panic...
Well, I know that if I'd happened to get pregnant when I was younger, I definitely wouldn't have gone through with it. After seeing cousins and friends get pregnant at an early age, I knew exactly what the score was, and I wouldn't have wanted any of it. Being a single mum in a bedsit living on benefits was never part of my plan. I think those that do it are pretty brave, but not for me.
My best mate got pregnant when she was fifteen, her mum sent her to some home and she was made to give up her child. After that, she went on to have another six kids in an unhappy marriage because she says she was filling the gap left by her first-born. She also underwent an abortion for reasons that i won't disclose here. She says the abortion was traumatic, but going through labour and giving up her child haunts her to this day.
This is just my opinion, and lots won't like it, but there are enough idiots popping out kids for the extra money to keep the world going. The human race isn't going to die out because a few people decide that it's the wrong time or circumstances for them to have children. If abortion was illegal, there would be a lot more abandoned babies and unwanted kids. What then?
Abortion poll - part 3
It has to be a personal choice, no one should tick-take what you can and cannot do with your body.
women who have been raped and become pregnant
women who cannot afford a baby
women who by accident got pregnant
women who got pregnant and they're marriage is failing.
to many to list, it has to be your own personal choice.
women who have been raped and become pregnant
women who cannot afford a baby
women who by accident got pregnant
women who got pregnant and they're marriage is failing.
to many to list, it has to be your own personal choice.
Life is just to short for drama.
Abortion poll - part 3
Pinky;956521 wrote: Well, I know that if I'd happened to get pregnant when I was younger, I definitely wouldn't have gone through with it. After seeing cousins and friends get pregnant at an early age, I knew exactly what the score was, and I wouldn't have wanted any of it. Being a single mum in a bedsit living on benefits was never part of my plan. I think those that do it are pretty brave, but not for me.
My best mate got pregnant when she was fifteen, her mum sent her to some home and she was made to give up her child. After that, she went on to have another six kids in an unhappy marriage because she says she was filling the gap left by her first-born. She also underwent an abortion for reasons that i won't disclose here. She says the abortion was traumatic, but going through labour and giving up her child haunts her to this day.
This is just my opinion, and lots won't like it, but there are enough idiots popping out kids for the extra money to keep the world going. The human race isn't going to die out because a few people decide that it's the wrong time or circumstances for them to have children. If abortion was illegal, there would be a lot more abandoned babies and unwanted kids. What then?
The societies on the brink of depression would be affected the most which would then bring up an arising question as to how morale that society is...The people to whom could afford to help those unwanted kids would be left to fill the void on the happenings of increment...What's left is for the law to mandate those taxes being assured to those to whom need it to begin with anyway by form of added stipulation...
I have no doubt the richer countries wouldn't see the effects of abandoned kids for quite some time but the fact of the matter is is that the human race multiplies very rapidly and the long term affects, from my own opinion, could be very disastrous...
My primary belief is that yes I can see how it can be considered immoral to have an abortion but how can one not see the immorality in subjecting those "saved" peoples a hellish, unloved life?...Institutions aren't exactly the focal point of undivided attention let alone personal endearment...
My best mate got pregnant when she was fifteen, her mum sent her to some home and she was made to give up her child. After that, she went on to have another six kids in an unhappy marriage because she says she was filling the gap left by her first-born. She also underwent an abortion for reasons that i won't disclose here. She says the abortion was traumatic, but going through labour and giving up her child haunts her to this day.
This is just my opinion, and lots won't like it, but there are enough idiots popping out kids for the extra money to keep the world going. The human race isn't going to die out because a few people decide that it's the wrong time or circumstances for them to have children. If abortion was illegal, there would be a lot more abandoned babies and unwanted kids. What then?
The societies on the brink of depression would be affected the most which would then bring up an arising question as to how morale that society is...The people to whom could afford to help those unwanted kids would be left to fill the void on the happenings of increment...What's left is for the law to mandate those taxes being assured to those to whom need it to begin with anyway by form of added stipulation...
I have no doubt the richer countries wouldn't see the effects of abandoned kids for quite some time but the fact of the matter is is that the human race multiplies very rapidly and the long term affects, from my own opinion, could be very disastrous...
My primary belief is that yes I can see how it can be considered immoral to have an abortion but how can one not see the immorality in subjecting those "saved" peoples a hellish, unloved life?...Institutions aren't exactly the focal point of undivided attention let alone personal endearment...
Abortion poll - part 3
I personally find abortion to be wrong. BUT! That's my opinion and after having children, I don't think I could ever have an abortion. Abortion is a personal matter, it's decision that has to be made by the woman and/or man in the relationship.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Abortion poll - part 3
There is not an option to match my position.
I do not believe in abortion on demand and without due cause but I do believe in abortion on medical grounds and where, for example, the pregnancy is the result of rape.
No to pro-choice as I understand the term
Definitely no to illegal
My concern is not with the effect on society but on the woman involved.
I do not believe in abortion on demand and without due cause but I do believe in abortion on medical grounds and where, for example, the pregnancy is the result of rape.
No to pro-choice as I understand the term
Definitely no to illegal
My concern is not with the effect on society but on the woman involved.
Abortion poll - part 3
Hoss;956636 wrote: Why not teach and train up children that there is no greater relationship than a man and a woman who love each other and are committed to a life long relationship based on love and mutual respect? That way when a child is conceived then the child is loved and cherished as part of the family. If that cycle is fostered over and over again there won’t be any need for abortion. Why do adults always want to solve a problem with another problem? Undo what parents have been doing wrong all along and in the meantime love each child to be born instead of just killing them. My friend’s mother aborted five children before him and one after. She calls him ‘the lucky survivor’. What does that teach him about how important a life is?
That's idealism...We're looking for realism based upon present circumstances...I couldn't possibly disagree with anything you've said in this post but such ideology just is not prevalent...
It's quite simply neutral at best...
How would you go about bringing this to fruition?...
That's idealism...We're looking for realism based upon present circumstances...I couldn't possibly disagree with anything you've said in this post but such ideology just is not prevalent...
It's quite simply neutral at best...
How would you go about bringing this to fruition?...
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;956694 wrote: There is not an option to match my position.
I do not believe in abortion on demand and without due cause but I do believe in abortion on medical grounds and where, for example, the pregnancy is the result of rape.
No to pro-choice as I understand the term
Definitely no to illegal
My concern is not with the effect on society but on the woman involved.
You don't feel due cause for abortion is overpopulation?...
I do not believe in abortion on demand and without due cause but I do believe in abortion on medical grounds and where, for example, the pregnancy is the result of rape.
No to pro-choice as I understand the term
Definitely no to illegal
My concern is not with the effect on society but on the woman involved.
You don't feel due cause for abortion is overpopulation?...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;956870 wrote: You don't feel due cause for abortion is overpopulation?...
That's why there is birth control.
That's why there is birth control.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;956870 wrote: You don't feel due cause for abortion is overpopulation?...
No.
Abortion is a response to individual circumstances, not a tool for social engineering or population control.
No.
Abortion is a response to individual circumstances, not a tool for social engineering or population control.
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
To have someone in government to tell what i can do or not do with my own body. Most of these law makers are men. that never have the worries of becoming pregnant. That is like people who have no kids telling you how to raise yours.
When they (men) can put their selves in a woman's shoes. then i may value their opinion.:rolleyes:
When they (men) can put their selves in a woman's shoes. then i may value their opinion.:rolleyes:Abortion poll - part 3
Sheryl;957009 wrote: That's why there is birth control.
Idealism...We're looking for realism...
I wouldn't for a minute condone abortion...
I would however sacrifice a childs' life in it's earliest stages of conception for the greater good of a greater number...
I personally would rather hand out condoms and birth control pills before I handed out food stamps but that's just me...The problem lies in establishing good morale values throughout every human perspective but the problem is is that no one knows where to begin...Because the beginning isn't cared about by those to whom posses it...
Idealism...We're looking for realism...
I wouldn't for a minute condone abortion...
I would however sacrifice a childs' life in it's earliest stages of conception for the greater good of a greater number...
I personally would rather hand out condoms and birth control pills before I handed out food stamps but that's just me...The problem lies in establishing good morale values throughout every human perspective but the problem is is that no one knows where to begin...Because the beginning isn't cared about by those to whom posses it...
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957115 wrote: No.
Abortion is a response to individual circumstances, not a tool for social engineering or population control.
Yes but wouldn't you agree it's dependant upon perception?...
It's no one elses' responsibility to raise someone elses' kid...Not at least to the extent from which I happen to condone abortion...
Abortion is a response to individual circumstances, not a tool for social engineering or population control.
Yes but wouldn't you agree it's dependant upon perception?...
It's no one elses' responsibility to raise someone elses' kid...Not at least to the extent from which I happen to condone abortion...
Abortion poll - part 3
southern yankee;957122 wrote: To have someone in government to tell what i can do or not do with my own body. Most of these law makers are men. that never have the worries of becoming pregnant. That is like people who have no kids telling you how to raise yours. When they (men) can put their selves in a woman's shoes. then i may value their opinion.:rolleyes:
The alternative being not getting pregnant...
When they (men) can put their selves in a woman's shoes. then i may value their opinion.:rolleyes:The alternative being not getting pregnant...
Abortion poll - part 3
I guess I'm not totally following your way of thinking K. I don't understand how your linking population control to abortion. If the government wanted to control population they could force IUD's on girls once they hit puberty, ect.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Abortion poll - part 3
I think it is a personal choice.
Never having been put in that position I can't speak for others.
Never having been put in that position I can't speak for others.
It's nice to be important,but more important to be nice.
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;956694 wrote: There is not an option to match my position.
I do not believe in abortion on demand and without due cause but I do believe in abortion on medical grounds and where, for example, the pregnancy is the result of rape.
I'm having trouble in understanding where you differentiate the childs' life scarce of rape on that of a woman getting pregnant by the vile act of rape...
What's your logic on this position?...
I do not believe in abortion on demand and without due cause but I do believe in abortion on medical grounds and where, for example, the pregnancy is the result of rape.
I'm having trouble in understanding where you differentiate the childs' life scarce of rape on that of a woman getting pregnant by the vile act of rape...
What's your logic on this position?...
Abortion poll - part 3
Lets just let women make up there own minds, just for once.
Tis always been a man's world.
Haven't we already been through enough crap in our lives?
Tis always been a man's world.
Haven't we already been through enough crap in our lives?
Life is just to short for drama.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957290 wrote:
I would however sacrifice a childs' life in it's earliest stages of conception for the greater good of a greater number...
As staunchly pro-choice as I am, I'm having some trouble with this. I'm thinking of all the reasons I would choose to abort and somehow the greater good of others is not a reason I'd terminate my child. Does this make me selfish? Who is to say that the mass value of the lives of a large group of people is more than that of one life? I've asked this before of other issues. I don't know what kind of scale we're using here.
K.Snyder;957290 wrote: I personally would rather hand out condoms and birth control pills before I handed out food stamps but that's just me...
Agreed but some say *that* is idealistic. I would rather hand out the food stamps before expecting someone to kill their kid for the betterment of all.
K.Snyder;957291 wrote:
It's no one elses' responsibility to raise someone elses' kid...Not at least to the extent from which I happen to condone abortion...
In a sense you're right. On a personal basis. But once that kid is here, basic laws of humanity kick in and we're all responsible as mere humans for its wellbeing.
I would however sacrifice a childs' life in it's earliest stages of conception for the greater good of a greater number...
As staunchly pro-choice as I am, I'm having some trouble with this. I'm thinking of all the reasons I would choose to abort and somehow the greater good of others is not a reason I'd terminate my child. Does this make me selfish? Who is to say that the mass value of the lives of a large group of people is more than that of one life? I've asked this before of other issues. I don't know what kind of scale we're using here.
K.Snyder;957290 wrote: I personally would rather hand out condoms and birth control pills before I handed out food stamps but that's just me...
Agreed but some say *that* is idealistic. I would rather hand out the food stamps before expecting someone to kill their kid for the betterment of all.
K.Snyder;957291 wrote:
It's no one elses' responsibility to raise someone elses' kid...Not at least to the extent from which I happen to condone abortion...
In a sense you're right. On a personal basis. But once that kid is here, basic laws of humanity kick in and we're all responsible as mere humans for its wellbeing.
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957300 wrote: As staunchly pro-choice as I am, I'm having some trouble with this. I'm thinking of all the reasons I would choose to abort and somehow the greater good of others is not a reason I'd terminate my child. Does this make me selfish? Who is to say that the mass value of the lives of a large group of people is more than that of one life? I've asked this before of other issues. I don't know what kind of scale we're using here. Fair enough...The only thing left to say is what I've said prior is my personal belief with extreme emphasis on I'd rather see a pregnancy aborted than someone die of starvation...
RedGlitter;957300 wrote:
Agreed but some say *that* is idealistic. I would rather hand out the food stamps before expecting someone to kill their kid for the betterment of all. Difference of optimistic grandeur...I take it you're a half full type of person...:yh_wink...:wah:...
RedGlitter;957300 wrote:
In a sense you're right. On a personal basis. But once that kid is here, basic laws of humanity kick in and we're all responsible as mere humans for its wellbeing. Of course we're all responsible to an extent...We are not however responsible for the entire reasoning behind the pregnancy...Huge difference...
RedGlitter;957300 wrote:
Agreed but some say *that* is idealistic. I would rather hand out the food stamps before expecting someone to kill their kid for the betterment of all. Difference of optimistic grandeur...I take it you're a half full type of person...:yh_wink...:wah:...
RedGlitter;957300 wrote:
In a sense you're right. On a personal basis. But once that kid is here, basic laws of humanity kick in and we're all responsible as mere humans for its wellbeing. Of course we're all responsible to an extent...We are not however responsible for the entire reasoning behind the pregnancy...Huge difference...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957291 wrote: Yes but wouldn't you agree it's dependant upon perception?...
It's no one elses' responsibility to raise someone elses' kid...Not at least to the extent from which I happen to condone abortion...
Control of overpopulation is the problem of society, not of the individual.
Abortion is a solution of last resort to the problems of an individual, not a tool for society.
Try to mix the two and you have another Sanjay Ghandi or another one child per family edict - a well intentioned attempt to solve the population problem that becomes a social nightmare. The time for ultimate solutions is not yet here.
It's no one elses' responsibility to raise someone elses' kid...Not at least to the extent from which I happen to condone abortion...
Control of overpopulation is the problem of society, not of the individual.
Abortion is a solution of last resort to the problems of an individual, not a tool for society.
Try to mix the two and you have another Sanjay Ghandi or another one child per family edict - a well intentioned attempt to solve the population problem that becomes a social nightmare. The time for ultimate solutions is not yet here.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957302 wrote: Fair enough...The only thing left to say is what I've said prior is my personal belief with extreme emphasis on I'd rather see a pregnancy aborted than someone die of starvation...
Well...what are we talking? Third world countries where that's a daily reality? Or the western world where it's really not? Who's starving? Who said we were overpopulated anyway?
K.Snyder;957302 wrote: Difference of optimistic grandeur...I take it you're a half full type of person...:yh_wink...:wah:...
Actually no. I'm a total "half empty glass" kind of person. I just surprise people sometimes.
K.Snyder;957302 wrote: Of course we're all responsible to an extent...We are not however responsible for the entire reasoning behind the pregnancy...Huge difference...
How so is there a huge difference? To me, the reason why the pregnancy is moot. We can always say "shoulda kept your legs closed/shoulda kept your britches on" but *reality* says humans + sex= lots of room for human error. All that thinking does is place one person's ideas of morality on another person. Which by the way, is the same thing as when someone says "I'm not for abortion except if she was raped." Why not just say "you made your bed and now you lie in it?" It's the same thing.
Well...what are we talking? Third world countries where that's a daily reality? Or the western world where it's really not? Who's starving? Who said we were overpopulated anyway?
K.Snyder;957302 wrote: Difference of optimistic grandeur...I take it you're a half full type of person...:yh_wink...:wah:...
Actually no. I'm a total "half empty glass" kind of person. I just surprise people sometimes.
K.Snyder;957302 wrote: Of course we're all responsible to an extent...We are not however responsible for the entire reasoning behind the pregnancy...Huge difference...
How so is there a huge difference? To me, the reason why the pregnancy is moot. We can always say "shoulda kept your legs closed/shoulda kept your britches on" but *reality* says humans + sex= lots of room for human error. All that thinking does is place one person's ideas of morality on another person. Which by the way, is the same thing as when someone says "I'm not for abortion except if she was raped." Why not just say "you made your bed and now you lie in it?" It's the same thing.
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957295 wrote: I'm having trouble in understanding where you differentiate the childs' life scarce of rape on that of a woman getting pregnant by the vile act of rape...
What's your logic on this position?...
I do not fully understand your question - could you rephrase it?
What's your logic on this position?...
I do not fully understand your question - could you rephrase it?
Abortion poll - part 3
I have yet to meet a woman in whatever circumstances who has had an abortion who does not feel a sence of loss, what if, guilt ect
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957308 wrote: Control of overpopulation is the problem of society, not of the individual.
Abortion is a solution of last resort to the problems of an individual, not a tool for society.
Try to mix the two and you have another Sanjay Ghandi or another one child per family edict - a well intentioned attempt to solve the population problem that becomes a social nightmare. The time for ultimate solutions is not yet here.
I would have to agree completely...Doesn't change the logic that I have though...
Especially in America...Money to me doesn't supercede a bottle of wine on occasion and enough gas to get to a place protrudent of free complacency...
Abortion is a solution of last resort to the problems of an individual, not a tool for society.
Try to mix the two and you have another Sanjay Ghandi or another one child per family edict - a well intentioned attempt to solve the population problem that becomes a social nightmare. The time for ultimate solutions is not yet here.
I would have to agree completely...Doesn't change the logic that I have though...
Especially in America...Money to me doesn't supercede a bottle of wine on occasion and enough gas to get to a place protrudent of free complacency...
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957314 wrote: I do not fully understand your question - could you rephrase it?
You've said that you feel abortion is acceptable by your own standards only if a pregnancy were the result of rape and health were a concern upon the continuance of conception...I wholeheartedly agree with abortion when the pregnancy threatens the well being of others...
My question is is how you would feel that abortion upon pregnancy as the direct result of rape is more acceptable by your own standards than any other circumstance...I'm having trouble in understanding how you feel a pregnancy by rape is any different than a pregnancy by those to whom cannot even support themselves let alone themselves and a child...
You've said that you feel abortion is acceptable by your own standards only if a pregnancy were the result of rape and health were a concern upon the continuance of conception...I wholeheartedly agree with abortion when the pregnancy threatens the well being of others...
My question is is how you would feel that abortion upon pregnancy as the direct result of rape is more acceptable by your own standards than any other circumstance...I'm having trouble in understanding how you feel a pregnancy by rape is any different than a pregnancy by those to whom cannot even support themselves let alone themselves and a child...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957321 wrote: You've said that you feel abortion is acceptable by your own standards only if a pregnancy were the result of rape and health were a concern upon the continuance of conception...I wholeheartedly agree with abortion when the pregnancy threatens the well being of others...
My question is is how you would feel that abortion upon pregnancy as the direct result of rape is more acceptable by your own standards than any other circumstance...I'm having trouble in understanding how you feel a pregnancy by rape is any different than a pregnancy by those to whom cannot even support themselves let alone themselves and a child...
No - I gave rape as one example of a possible reason, not the only possible reason.
My question is is how you would feel that abortion upon pregnancy as the direct result of rape is more acceptable by your own standards than any other circumstance...I'm having trouble in understanding how you feel a pregnancy by rape is any different than a pregnancy by those to whom cannot even support themselves let alone themselves and a child...
No - I gave rape as one example of a possible reason, not the only possible reason.
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957336 wrote: No - I gave rape as one example of a possible reason, not the only possible reason.
Ok...
I'm just asking why you feel rape is due cause for abortion that's all...
Ok...
I'm just asking why you feel rape is due cause for abortion that's all...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957337 wrote: Ok...
I'm just asking why you feel rape is due cause for abortion that's all...
Because of the psychological damage it can cause. In some cases it would not be due cause, in many it would - each case on its merits.
I'm just asking why you feel rape is due cause for abortion that's all...
Because of the psychological damage it can cause. In some cases it would not be due cause, in many it would - each case on its merits.
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957339 wrote: Because of the psychological damage it can cause. In some cases it would not be due cause, in many it would - each case on its merits.
Oh ok...So more so the tolerance as opposed to expectation...
I can understand that...
Oh ok...So more so the tolerance as opposed to expectation...
I can understand that...
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957339 wrote: Because of the psychological damage it can cause. In some cases it would not be due cause, in many it would - each case on its merits.
Even with this in mind & with all due respect to you Bryn :-4
No woman is without some feeling of loss, guilt, burden, call it what you will its there even if they fool themselves into its not (thats just a cover) scatch the surface ect imo
Even with this in mind & with all due respect to you Bryn :-4
No woman is without some feeling of loss, guilt, burden, call it what you will its there even if they fool themselves into its not (thats just a cover) scatch the surface ect imo
Abortion poll - part 3
buttercup;957350 wrote: Even with this in mind & with all due respect to you Bryn :-4
No woman is without some feeling of loss, guilt, burden, call it what you will its there even if they fool themselves into its not (thats just a cover) scatch the surface ect imo
Completely understandable...With extreme emphasis on the meaning of pregnancy...Upon a woman being pregnant as the result of rape I would consider the contemplation more so scientific than anything else...
No woman is without some feeling of loss, guilt, burden, call it what you will its there even if they fool themselves into its not (thats just a cover) scatch the surface ect imo
Completely understandable...With extreme emphasis on the meaning of pregnancy...Upon a woman being pregnant as the result of rape I would consider the contemplation more so scientific than anything else...
Abortion poll - part 3
buttercup;957350 wrote: Even with this in mind & with all due respect to you Bryn :-4
No woman is without some feeling of loss, guilt, burden, call it what you will its there even if they fool themselves into its not (thats just a cover) scatch the surface ect imo
Totally agree, I've seen it and known it to happen - that's why it is a judgement call on a case by case basis, everyone reaction is different and a case that would destroy one person should the pregnancy go ahead could well destroy another person with guilt should it be terminated.
No woman is without some feeling of loss, guilt, burden, call it what you will its there even if they fool themselves into its not (thats just a cover) scatch the surface ect imo
Totally agree, I've seen it and known it to happen - that's why it is a judgement call on a case by case basis, everyone reaction is different and a case that would destroy one person should the pregnancy go ahead could well destroy another person with guilt should it be terminated.
Abortion poll - part 3
No easy answer my friend.
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957360 wrote: Totally agree, I've seen it and known it to happen - that's why it is a judgement call on a case by case basis, everyone reaction is different and a case that would destroy one person should the pregnancy go ahead could well destroy another person with guilt should it be terminated.
Wouldn't this be pro-choice though?...
Wouldn't this be pro-choice though?...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957368 wrote: Wouldn't this be pro-choice though?...
As I understand it, pro-choice is at the wish of the woman involved. I would be against that because it is open to whim and abuse - there needs to be due cause.
As I understand it, pro-choice is at the wish of the woman involved. I would be against that because it is open to whim and abuse - there needs to be due cause.
Abortion poll - part 3
Bryn Mawr;957374 wrote: As I understand it, pro-choice is at the wish of the woman involved. I would be against that because it is open to whim and abuse - there needs to be due cause.
Well that's the most idealistic thing I've ever heard...
I completely admire your optimism though...
Well that's the most idealistic thing I've ever heard...
I completely admire your optimism though...
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;957471 wrote: A report from the Herald Sun, and an opinion from a law professor.
VICTORIAN women are closer to abortion without prosecution under laws that triggered heated scenes in State Parliament.
The State Government introduced reforms allowing women to have an abortion at up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
After this period, abortions can only be performed with the consent of two doctors.
The introduction of the reforms came amid emotional scenes in the public gallery and divisions on both sides of politics. A conscience vote on the reforms is expected to take place next month.
Under the Bill, doctors must assess a woman's current and future physical, psychological and social situations to decide if an abortion should proceed.
Anti-abortion activist Marcel White, an expectant father, was dragged from the gallery, screaming: "There's blood on your hands, John Brumby."
Mr White is campaign director for Right to Life Australia and was one of two people ejected from Parliament.
A woman was removed for yelling: "Thou shalt not kill."
Health Minister Daniel Andrews said the Abortion Law Reform Bill would remove women gaining abortions from the shadows of the Crimes Act.
"By clarifying the law in this area, we are not intending to expand the extent to which terminations occur, or restrict access to services," Mr Andrews said.
Industry and Trade Minister Theo Theophanous and Sport Minister James Merlino oppose the reforms.
Six other ministers - Rob Hulls, Bob Cameron, Joe Helper, John Lenders, Justin Madden and Tony Robinson - have yet to declare their hands.
Several prominent Coalition MPs, including Nationals leader Peter Ryan and Liberals Terry Mulder, Robert Clark and Kim Wells, will vote against the move.
Premier John Brumby and Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu are backing the move.
Many MPs canvassed by the Herald Sun last night were unsure how they would vote.
Mr Brumby believes Parliament will pass the legislation.
"I'm very confident about the passage of the Bill in the Lower House," he said.
"I think it'll be a closer debate in the Upper House, but on balance it is my view the legislation will be adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
"It's a crucial matter for (women), that a personal decision they've made about themselves and their body is subject to action under the criminal code."
KEY POINTS
ABORTION will be decriminalised under legislation introduced in State Parliament but subject to a conscience vote by MPs
THE legislation would enable Victorian women to have an abortion at up to 24 weeks
AFTER 24 weeks, a doctor could perform an abortion only if it is believed the termination of the pregnancy is appropriate and another doctor has been consulted and agrees
MOST of the community would seem to support proposed changes mooted by the Victorian Government to decriminalise abortion.
A Bill to be introduced by Health Minister Daniel Andrews later this week is likely to allow women an open choice to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
There will be a conscience vote on the legislation, but its inevitable passage will have nothing to do with good conscience.
Instead, it will simply confirm that as a species our moral sympathy gland is rarely triggered by beings whose suffering or loss we cannot readily detect.
Our moral stances continue to be driven by self-interest as opposed to detached and fair principles.
That's why we are not marching in the streets to stop the intense cruelty our farmers inflict on farm animals.
That's why we are gorging ourselves to ill-health by eating too much food while 20,000 people in distant parts of the world die daily of starvation or other readily preventable causes.
It's also why so many people are prepared to destroy a fetus.
The next time that people ponder their views on abortion, they would do well to reflect on the fact that the only reason they get to reflect on the issue is because they got lucky -- their mother decided not to exercise her choice on them.
Abortion numbers in Australia are estimated at around 90,000 annually. This compares with around 250,000 births. Thus, more than a quarter of all pregnancies are terminated.
From the moral perspective, the abortion issue involves balancing two main competing interests -- the right to life versus the right to one's body.
There is no obvious point during the gestation process that can be used to signify when life commences.
Gestation is an ongoing process. At no stage during the process does the fetus have relevantly different attributes to a point marginally earlier in time.
The least arbitrary point at which life begins is at conception.
At this stage the embryo has individuality and uniqueness, and the building blocks for the development of life. There is no logical difference between a 24-week embryo and a new-born child. What of 25 weeks or 23?
The only quality that a 24-week embryo lacks, by virtue of it being in the womb, is the capacity to tug at the emotional heartstrings of the mother.
It also can't plead for its life.
The indecency of the human condition is rarely more obvious than in relation to our willingness to exterminate humans simply because they can't beg to not be destroyed.
Further, on matters pertaining to life and death it is better to err on the side of conservatism. Of course, the right to life is not absolute.
Pro-choice advocates point out that the right to one's body means that we cannot force others to donate blood or a kidney to save another person.
Thus, it has been argued that women cannot be forced to deliver unwanted children.
However, when the notion of personal responsibility is factored into the abortion benefits and burden calculus, the baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to her body.
More is expected of people who bring about a state of affairs.
That's why if you cause an accident you must try to rescue injured people, while onlookers have no such obligation. Of course women are entitled to do what they want with their bodies.
But so too are males, including those too young to express their views.
Never in human history has a child under the age of two committed suicide, so you can be sure that no embryo wants its body destroyed.
The interest that an embryo has in preserving its being is more paramount and permanent than a female's right to not be incumbered by nine months of pregnancy.
Thus, abortion is unethical.
Its widespread acceptance doesn't change this.
Rather it illustrates that our moral judgments continue to be unduly shaped by emotion as opposed to logic.
The fact that we can actually see a being and hear it cry is no basis for conferring it enhanced moral status.
Morality involves the development of universal standards -- its reach is not exhausted by what we can sense and feel. There is no doubt a need to change the abortion laws. But in the opposite direction to that proposed by the Victorian Government.
The Government states that abortion would be allowable after 24 weeks only in circumstances where continuing the pregnancy posed a risk of harm to the women.
Why 24 weeks? Abortion should be made illegal at any time, except where the pregnancy arose out of forced sex or its continuation presents a demonstrable and serious risk to the welfare of the woman.
Unlike the current limitations on abortions, this new law needs to be monitored and enforced.
No doubt pro-choice groups will be opposed to this proposed fetter on embryo and fetus destruction.
And they are entitled to, but they are not entitled to base their arguments on ethical grounds.
Morality commands that wherever possible, luck must be eliminated from considerations of life and death.
It is repugnant to suggest that whether a being enjoys the most cardinal right of all - to life - should depend on the whim of another person.
Mirko Bagaric is a professor of law at Deakin University and author of Being Happy and Dealing with Moral Dilemmas
Dependent upon the competence of the most socially applicable jobs within the state...
I can see the logic...I can't however see the prudence in it as such a parliament is defined by the contemporary assessment of original doctrine...
It still raises the question to whom's right...
VICTORIAN women are closer to abortion without prosecution under laws that triggered heated scenes in State Parliament.
The State Government introduced reforms allowing women to have an abortion at up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
After this period, abortions can only be performed with the consent of two doctors.
The introduction of the reforms came amid emotional scenes in the public gallery and divisions on both sides of politics. A conscience vote on the reforms is expected to take place next month.
Under the Bill, doctors must assess a woman's current and future physical, psychological and social situations to decide if an abortion should proceed.
Anti-abortion activist Marcel White, an expectant father, was dragged from the gallery, screaming: "There's blood on your hands, John Brumby."
Mr White is campaign director for Right to Life Australia and was one of two people ejected from Parliament.
A woman was removed for yelling: "Thou shalt not kill."
Health Minister Daniel Andrews said the Abortion Law Reform Bill would remove women gaining abortions from the shadows of the Crimes Act.
"By clarifying the law in this area, we are not intending to expand the extent to which terminations occur, or restrict access to services," Mr Andrews said.
Industry and Trade Minister Theo Theophanous and Sport Minister James Merlino oppose the reforms.
Six other ministers - Rob Hulls, Bob Cameron, Joe Helper, John Lenders, Justin Madden and Tony Robinson - have yet to declare their hands.
Several prominent Coalition MPs, including Nationals leader Peter Ryan and Liberals Terry Mulder, Robert Clark and Kim Wells, will vote against the move.
Premier John Brumby and Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu are backing the move.
Many MPs canvassed by the Herald Sun last night were unsure how they would vote.
Mr Brumby believes Parliament will pass the legislation.
"I'm very confident about the passage of the Bill in the Lower House," he said.
"I think it'll be a closer debate in the Upper House, but on balance it is my view the legislation will be adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
"It's a crucial matter for (women), that a personal decision they've made about themselves and their body is subject to action under the criminal code."
KEY POINTS
ABORTION will be decriminalised under legislation introduced in State Parliament but subject to a conscience vote by MPs
THE legislation would enable Victorian women to have an abortion at up to 24 weeks
AFTER 24 weeks, a doctor could perform an abortion only if it is believed the termination of the pregnancy is appropriate and another doctor has been consulted and agrees
MOST of the community would seem to support proposed changes mooted by the Victorian Government to decriminalise abortion.
A Bill to be introduced by Health Minister Daniel Andrews later this week is likely to allow women an open choice to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
There will be a conscience vote on the legislation, but its inevitable passage will have nothing to do with good conscience.
Instead, it will simply confirm that as a species our moral sympathy gland is rarely triggered by beings whose suffering or loss we cannot readily detect.
Our moral stances continue to be driven by self-interest as opposed to detached and fair principles.
That's why we are not marching in the streets to stop the intense cruelty our farmers inflict on farm animals.
That's why we are gorging ourselves to ill-health by eating too much food while 20,000 people in distant parts of the world die daily of starvation or other readily preventable causes.
It's also why so many people are prepared to destroy a fetus.
The next time that people ponder their views on abortion, they would do well to reflect on the fact that the only reason they get to reflect on the issue is because they got lucky -- their mother decided not to exercise her choice on them.
Abortion numbers in Australia are estimated at around 90,000 annually. This compares with around 250,000 births. Thus, more than a quarter of all pregnancies are terminated.
From the moral perspective, the abortion issue involves balancing two main competing interests -- the right to life versus the right to one's body.
There is no obvious point during the gestation process that can be used to signify when life commences.
Gestation is an ongoing process. At no stage during the process does the fetus have relevantly different attributes to a point marginally earlier in time.
The least arbitrary point at which life begins is at conception.
At this stage the embryo has individuality and uniqueness, and the building blocks for the development of life. There is no logical difference between a 24-week embryo and a new-born child. What of 25 weeks or 23?
The only quality that a 24-week embryo lacks, by virtue of it being in the womb, is the capacity to tug at the emotional heartstrings of the mother.
It also can't plead for its life.
The indecency of the human condition is rarely more obvious than in relation to our willingness to exterminate humans simply because they can't beg to not be destroyed.
Further, on matters pertaining to life and death it is better to err on the side of conservatism. Of course, the right to life is not absolute.
Pro-choice advocates point out that the right to one's body means that we cannot force others to donate blood or a kidney to save another person.
Thus, it has been argued that women cannot be forced to deliver unwanted children.
However, when the notion of personal responsibility is factored into the abortion benefits and burden calculus, the baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to her body.
More is expected of people who bring about a state of affairs.
That's why if you cause an accident you must try to rescue injured people, while onlookers have no such obligation. Of course women are entitled to do what they want with their bodies.
But so too are males, including those too young to express their views.
Never in human history has a child under the age of two committed suicide, so you can be sure that no embryo wants its body destroyed.
The interest that an embryo has in preserving its being is more paramount and permanent than a female's right to not be incumbered by nine months of pregnancy.
Thus, abortion is unethical.
Its widespread acceptance doesn't change this.
Rather it illustrates that our moral judgments continue to be unduly shaped by emotion as opposed to logic.
The fact that we can actually see a being and hear it cry is no basis for conferring it enhanced moral status.
Morality involves the development of universal standards -- its reach is not exhausted by what we can sense and feel. There is no doubt a need to change the abortion laws. But in the opposite direction to that proposed by the Victorian Government.
The Government states that abortion would be allowable after 24 weeks only in circumstances where continuing the pregnancy posed a risk of harm to the women.
Why 24 weeks? Abortion should be made illegal at any time, except where the pregnancy arose out of forced sex or its continuation presents a demonstrable and serious risk to the welfare of the woman.
Unlike the current limitations on abortions, this new law needs to be monitored and enforced.
No doubt pro-choice groups will be opposed to this proposed fetter on embryo and fetus destruction.
And they are entitled to, but they are not entitled to base their arguments on ethical grounds.
Morality commands that wherever possible, luck must be eliminated from considerations of life and death.
It is repugnant to suggest that whether a being enjoys the most cardinal right of all - to life - should depend on the whim of another person.
Mirko Bagaric is a professor of law at Deakin University and author of Being Happy and Dealing with Moral Dilemmas
Dependent upon the competence of the most socially applicable jobs within the state...
I can see the logic...I can't however see the prudence in it as such a parliament is defined by the contemporary assessment of original doctrine...
It still raises the question to whom's right...
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957486 wrote: Dependent upon the competence of the most socially applicable jobs within the state...
I can see the logic...I can't however see the prudence in it as such a parliament is defined by the contemporary assessment of original doctrine...
It still raises the question to whom's right...
Thing is, it all comes down to how you see it as to who is right.
We're all right in our own minds, though some of us concede to taking viewpoints on board, if they're valid. No-one can ever truly be wrong or right in this, that's why it will go on and on and on some more...:-5:rolleyes::-5
I can see the logic...I can't however see the prudence in it as such a parliament is defined by the contemporary assessment of original doctrine...
It still raises the question to whom's right...
Thing is, it all comes down to how you see it as to who is right.
We're all right in our own minds, though some of us concede to taking viewpoints on board, if they're valid. No-one can ever truly be wrong or right in this, that's why it will go on and on and on some more...:-5:rolleyes::-5
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
Pinky;957530 wrote: Thing is, it all comes down to how you see it as to who is right.
We're all right in our own minds, though some of us concede to taking viewpoints on board, if they're valid. No-one can ever truly be wrong or right in this, that's why it will go on and on and on some more...:-5:rolleyes::-5
Well sure, because some believe abortion is killing a human being before he or she has even had a chance to succeed or fail at life, and others think they're just sparing themselves the "pain" of giving their child a chance via adoption. (I won't even address the population control tripe)
It wouldn't go on and on and on some more if the stakes weren't so high.
We're all right in our own minds, though some of us concede to taking viewpoints on board, if they're valid. No-one can ever truly be wrong or right in this, that's why it will go on and on and on some more...:-5:rolleyes::-5
Well sure, because some believe abortion is killing a human being before he or she has even had a chance to succeed or fail at life, and others think they're just sparing themselves the "pain" of giving their child a chance via adoption. (I won't even address the population control tripe)
It wouldn't go on and on and on some more if the stakes weren't so high.
Abortion poll - part 3
Hoss;957571 wrote: Sorry I misunderstood the reason for the post. But if you start doing my idea then others see you do it then it might catch on and people might think before they kill another child.
My reasoning upon any instance as opposed to "post" is for the well being of humanity...I wouldn't expect anything else from anyone...
But the fact of the matter is is that you're post illustrates the idealistic farsightedness of grandeur...I'm all for that...In fact, I couldn't think of a more appropriate illustration...
What's needed is the resolving of realistic concern faced with human progression...
The difference being perspective...
I see a very huge problem with the prohibition of abortion over a set period of time...
It brings about the old question of "Would you permit the death of one to save a 1000"...It's perfectly adjacent...
My reasoning upon any instance as opposed to "post" is for the well being of humanity...I wouldn't expect anything else from anyone...
But the fact of the matter is is that you're post illustrates the idealistic farsightedness of grandeur...I'm all for that...In fact, I couldn't think of a more appropriate illustration...
What's needed is the resolving of realistic concern faced with human progression...
The difference being perspective...
I see a very huge problem with the prohibition of abortion over a set period of time...
It brings about the old question of "Would you permit the death of one to save a 1000"...It's perfectly adjacent...
Abortion poll - part 3
Pinky;957530 wrote: Thing is, it all comes down to how you see it as to who is right.
We're all right in our own minds, though some of us concede to taking viewpoints on board, if they're valid. No-one can ever truly be wrong or right in this, that's why it will go on and on and on some more...:-5:rolleyes::-5
Sure...
But at what point do we weigh the risks of individual entities?...
At what point is it more moral to abide by the logic of one as opposed to the other?...
To which starting point do we give credit to the one we consider more moral?...
We're all right in our own minds, though some of us concede to taking viewpoints on board, if they're valid. No-one can ever truly be wrong or right in this, that's why it will go on and on and on some more...:-5:rolleyes::-5
Sure...
But at what point do we weigh the risks of individual entities?...
At what point is it more moral to abide by the logic of one as opposed to the other?...
To which starting point do we give credit to the one we consider more moral?...
Abortion poll - part 3
Accountable;957566 wrote: Well sure, because some believe abortion is killing a human being before he or she has even had a chance to succeed or fail at life, and others think they're just sparing themselves the "pain" of giving their child a chance via adoption. (I won't even address the population control tripe)
It wouldn't go on and on and on some more if the stakes weren't so high.
What's "the stakes"?...
And you don't feel making abortion illegal would potentially burden society within the next 100 years?...If not would 100 years be appropriate before we revert back to abortion being pro-choice?...
It wouldn't go on and on and on some more if the stakes weren't so high.
What's "the stakes"?...
And you don't feel making abortion illegal would potentially burden society within the next 100 years?...If not would 100 years be appropriate before we revert back to abortion being pro-choice?...