K.Snyder;957585 wrote: What's "the stakes"?...
:-1 That you even have to ask ....
That's how far apart we are, morally. In as long as you have been reading my posts you haven't gotten my answer to that question, I'm not even going to try to explain it to you.
Perhaps someone else can give it a shot.
Abortion poll - part 3
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
Accountable;957592 wrote: :-1 That you even have to ask ....
That's how far apart we are, morally. In as long as you have been reading my posts you haven't gotten my answer to that question, I'm not even going to try to explain it to you.
Perhaps someone else can give it a shot.
Well forum etiquette most assuredly isn't of one of your pragmatic virtues...
You have no idea of the potential behind percentage is concerned...
I get every bit of everything...
All one needs is a bit of integrity.
That's how far apart we are, morally. In as long as you have been reading my posts you haven't gotten my answer to that question, I'm not even going to try to explain it to you.
Perhaps someone else can give it a shot.
Well forum etiquette most assuredly isn't of one of your pragmatic virtues...
You have no idea of the potential behind percentage is concerned...
I get every bit of everything...
All one needs is a bit of integrity.
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957292 wrote: The alternative being not getting pregnant... nothing is FOOL PROOF
Abortion poll - part 3
southern yankee;957657 wrote: nothing is FOOL PROOF
I have no doubt such sentiment precludes justification but we're talking about morale entity...
It's just as easily arguable that pregnancy is just as pragmatic as the ordinance of want as opposed to happening....
Is it more immoral to get pregnant not wanting to or terminating a pregnancy by virtue of convenience?...
I have no doubt such sentiment precludes justification but we're talking about morale entity...
It's just as easily arguable that pregnancy is just as pragmatic as the ordinance of want as opposed to happening....
Is it more immoral to get pregnant not wanting to or terminating a pregnancy by virtue of convenience?...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
Whose to say either is immoral? I think abortion is a necessary and viable evil. If I had one I would never forget it nor would it be like I went in and had a wart removed. But I wouldn't consider myself of bad moral virtue by any means. We are speaking of this as if it's common knowledge that we all "know" abortion is immoral. I don't cotton to that.
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957666 wrote: Whose to say either is immoral? I think abortion is a necessary and viable evil. If I had one I would never forget it nor would it be like I went in and had a wart removed. But I wouldn't consider myself of bad moral virtue by any means. We are speaking of this as if it's common knowledge that we all "know" abortion is immoral. I don't cotton to that.
No we're seeking justification in complacency by virtue of divine truth as opposed to habitual conformality...
Fare easier is it to conform to an ideology scarce of judgment...
We're looking for what's right in the instances leading up to the two variables being presented...One being abortion, the other being "morale" courtesy...
I have a huge problem with the latter at the expense of others...It's even heightened by the lack of concern by those more responsible...
No we're seeking justification in complacency by virtue of divine truth as opposed to habitual conformality...
Fare easier is it to conform to an ideology scarce of judgment...
We're looking for what's right in the instances leading up to the two variables being presented...One being abortion, the other being "morale" courtesy...
I have a huge problem with the latter at the expense of others...It's even heightened by the lack of concern by those more responsible...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K, in plain English please.
Are you saying you actually feel a couple or woman who can't provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else has to pay for it through taxes and such? Is that it?
Because if I understand you correctly, I think that's absurdly altruistic if you expect the parent(s) to decide that for themselves and heinously overstepping the lines of acceptability of you would have the government or any other outside entity mandate that.
And who decides how well a parent should provide anyway?
Are you saying you actually feel a couple or woman who can't provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else has to pay for it through taxes and such? Is that it?
Because if I understand you correctly, I think that's absurdly altruistic if you expect the parent(s) to decide that for themselves and heinously overstepping the lines of acceptability of you would have the government or any other outside entity mandate that.
And who decides how well a parent should provide anyway?
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957713 wrote: K, in plain English please.
Are you saying you actually feel a couple or woman who can't provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else has to pay for it through taxes and such? Is that it? I love the English language...
No. Not specifically and without what I feel is morale justification...I feel a couple or woman to whom cannot provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else suffers by virtue of impragmatic doctrine...I've already stated that countries with relatively well economies wouldn't suffer as greatly as others to whom would be subjected to more sacrifices...We're talking about realistic outcomes based on contemporary logic...It's sad but very real...Why is it that people feel that it's well worth feeding a child to starve a person simply because they're older?...In the same sense you argue it's more "morale" to allow the birth of a child simply because it's a human being...One child does not represent the syncretic overture of any given life form...I completely understand one cherishing a life anew but why allow the diminishment of another to ensure the well being of the minority?...It's perfectly adjacent...You speak of "rights"...What's the overlord of indoctrinated logic pertaining to the matter?...
I say it's pro choice...
RedGlitter;957713 wrote:
Because if I understand you correctly, I think that's absurdly altruistic if you expect the parent(s) to decide that for themselves and heinously overstepping the lines of acceptability of you would have the government or any other outside entity mandate that.
And who decides how well a parent should provide anyway? We're of the same sentiment so this question is unmotivated as of now...
Are you saying you actually feel a couple or woman who can't provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else has to pay for it through taxes and such? Is that it? I love the English language...
No. Not specifically and without what I feel is morale justification...I feel a couple or woman to whom cannot provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else suffers by virtue of impragmatic doctrine...I've already stated that countries with relatively well economies wouldn't suffer as greatly as others to whom would be subjected to more sacrifices...We're talking about realistic outcomes based on contemporary logic...It's sad but very real...Why is it that people feel that it's well worth feeding a child to starve a person simply because they're older?...In the same sense you argue it's more "morale" to allow the birth of a child simply because it's a human being...One child does not represent the syncretic overture of any given life form...I completely understand one cherishing a life anew but why allow the diminishment of another to ensure the well being of the minority?...It's perfectly adjacent...You speak of "rights"...What's the overlord of indoctrinated logic pertaining to the matter?...
I say it's pro choice...
RedGlitter;957713 wrote:
Because if I understand you correctly, I think that's absurdly altruistic if you expect the parent(s) to decide that for themselves and heinously overstepping the lines of acceptability of you would have the government or any other outside entity mandate that.
And who decides how well a parent should provide anyway? We're of the same sentiment so this question is unmotivated as of now...
Abortion poll - part 3
Hoss;957714 wrote: I’m not following you. It’s just normal to me and simple. I just won’t have sexual intercourse prior to being married to my wife. And when I do get there, every child the Lord gives will be my child, and I’ll love my wife and my children. If I get to love some one else’s children then I’ll love them too and bring them into my family. I’ll take them if you don’t want them, the Lord will provide a place for all those that should be born. Go read about George Muller, if God can do that for him he can do that for me or anybody else.
God?...Are you familiar with the dark ages?...Where was "God" then?...I'm sorry I believe in a divine righteousness but this "God" will do good for "me" is bogus...You will do good for you...Which is what we're after...
We're left to decide what's in the best interests of the majority...Upon peoples to whoms' morale virtues are wrong within a majority god save us...
The realism is is that overpopulation is a concern of mine...Making abortion illegal increases that concern...Plagues are still very pragmatic and very real...Not to mention the fact that economies dictate the well being of said peoples...
I say abortion should be pro-choice, and should never be illegal by vritue of the fact that the true wrong is within the conception to begin with...we're preaching to the choir...
What do we do to change the ideology of said peoples?...
Upon your disbelief I ask what's your logic...
God?...Are you familiar with the dark ages?...Where was "God" then?...I'm sorry I believe in a divine righteousness but this "God" will do good for "me" is bogus...You will do good for you...Which is what we're after...
We're left to decide what's in the best interests of the majority...Upon peoples to whoms' morale virtues are wrong within a majority god save us...
The realism is is that overpopulation is a concern of mine...Making abortion illegal increases that concern...Plagues are still very pragmatic and very real...Not to mention the fact that economies dictate the well being of said peoples...
I say abortion should be pro-choice, and should never be illegal by vritue of the fact that the true wrong is within the conception to begin with...we're preaching to the choir...
What do we do to change the ideology of said peoples?...
Upon your disbelief I ask what's your logic...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957718 wrote:
No. Not specifically and without what I feel is morale justification...I feel a couple or woman to whom cannot provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else suffers by virtue of impragmatic doctrine...I've already stated that countries with relatively well economies wouldn't suffer as greatly as others to whom would be subjected to more sacrifices...We're talking about realistic outcomes based on contemporary logic...It's sad but very real...Why is it that people feel that it's well worth feeding a child to starve a person simply because they're older?...In the same sense you argue it's more "morale" to allow the birth of a child simply because it's a human being...One child does not represent the syncretic overture of any given life form...I completely understand one cherishing a life anew but why allow the diminishment of another to ensure the well being of the minority?...It's perfectly adjacent...You speak of "rights"...What's the overlord of indoctrinated logic pertaining to the matter?...
1. I have never understood that myself. Evidently the thinking is the child is fresh and new and with unlimited potential, while the older person has already had a crack at things. I don't agree with it but that's common thinking. One is usually considered a selfish wretch if they don't value children higher than anyone else. I disagree so I guess some would see me as that wretch.
2. All I can do is turn that around and ask you why allow the termination/death of one person just because you have a majority you could save? Where do you allocate value to human life? I argued this with Spot once. He insisted one war was worse than another because more people got killed. I said one death has the same tragedy value as ten. I still feel that way and I feel it on this issue too.
I figure the kid gets here, you deal with it. Now maybe if we started knocking off boozehounds and crackheads who suck up welfare money I'd be more sympathetic to your cause. But the only reason I can see for abortion aside from medical reasons or rape is if the -woman- doesn't want a pregnancy. For absolutely any reason. But to do it for the sake of some shmo out in Pago Pago who I'll never know or anyone else, no. Unequivocally no.
No. Not specifically and without what I feel is morale justification...I feel a couple or woman to whom cannot provide well for their kid should abort it so no one else suffers by virtue of impragmatic doctrine...I've already stated that countries with relatively well economies wouldn't suffer as greatly as others to whom would be subjected to more sacrifices...We're talking about realistic outcomes based on contemporary logic...It's sad but very real...Why is it that people feel that it's well worth feeding a child to starve a person simply because they're older?...In the same sense you argue it's more "morale" to allow the birth of a child simply because it's a human being...One child does not represent the syncretic overture of any given life form...I completely understand one cherishing a life anew but why allow the diminishment of another to ensure the well being of the minority?...It's perfectly adjacent...You speak of "rights"...What's the overlord of indoctrinated logic pertaining to the matter?...
1. I have never understood that myself. Evidently the thinking is the child is fresh and new and with unlimited potential, while the older person has already had a crack at things. I don't agree with it but that's common thinking. One is usually considered a selfish wretch if they don't value children higher than anyone else. I disagree so I guess some would see me as that wretch.
2. All I can do is turn that around and ask you why allow the termination/death of one person just because you have a majority you could save? Where do you allocate value to human life? I argued this with Spot once. He insisted one war was worse than another because more people got killed. I said one death has the same tragedy value as ten. I still feel that way and I feel it on this issue too.
I figure the kid gets here, you deal with it. Now maybe if we started knocking off boozehounds and crackheads who suck up welfare money I'd be more sympathetic to your cause. But the only reason I can see for abortion aside from medical reasons or rape is if the -woman- doesn't want a pregnancy. For absolutely any reason. But to do it for the sake of some shmo out in Pago Pago who I'll never know or anyone else, no. Unequivocally no.
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957722 wrote: 1. I have never understood that myself. Evidently the thinking is the child is fresh and new and with unlimited potential, while the older person has already had a crack at things. I don't agree with it but that's common thinking. One is usually considered a selfish wretch if they don't value children higher than anyone else. I disagree so I guess some would see me as that wretch. Human empathy begins with the procurement of the majority...It's just natural instinct...I personally would expect to be put to death if my life threatened the greater good of the majority...Even if the majority were morally wrong it's still a complacency of courteous logic...I suppose what's left on such a clandestine issue is the assessment of those witnessed...
RedGlitter;957722 wrote:
2. All I can do is turn that around and ask you why allow the termination/death of one person just because you have a majority you could save? Where do you allocate value to human life? I argued this with Spot once. He insisted one war was worse than another because more people got killed. I said one death has the same tragedy value as ten. I still feel that way and I feel it on this issue too. How do you not believe two lives are better than one?...Is life of no importance to you?(Personally a rhetorical question but by virtue of forum etiquette I have to ask)...
RedGlitter;957722 wrote:
I figure the kid gets here, you deal with it. Now maybe if we started knocking off boozehounds and crackheads who suck up welfare money I'd be more sympathetic to your cause. But the only reason I can see for abortion aside from medical reasons or rape is if the -woman- doesn't want a pregnancy. For absolutely any reason. But to do it for the sake of some shmo out in Pago Pago who I'll never know or anyone else, no. Unequivocally no. My entire positin in this thread has been based on the exact same context...Not on any other occasion I condone abortion...
I value two lives more than one...
RedGlitter;957722 wrote:
2. All I can do is turn that around and ask you why allow the termination/death of one person just because you have a majority you could save? Where do you allocate value to human life? I argued this with Spot once. He insisted one war was worse than another because more people got killed. I said one death has the same tragedy value as ten. I still feel that way and I feel it on this issue too. How do you not believe two lives are better than one?...Is life of no importance to you?(Personally a rhetorical question but by virtue of forum etiquette I have to ask)...
RedGlitter;957722 wrote:
I figure the kid gets here, you deal with it. Now maybe if we started knocking off boozehounds and crackheads who suck up welfare money I'd be more sympathetic to your cause. But the only reason I can see for abortion aside from medical reasons or rape is if the -woman- doesn't want a pregnancy. For absolutely any reason. But to do it for the sake of some shmo out in Pago Pago who I'll never know or anyone else, no. Unequivocally no. My entire positin in this thread has been based on the exact same context...Not on any other occasion I condone abortion...
I value two lives more than one...
Abortion poll - part 3
Hoss;957725 wrote: So you do not believe God exists, that’s between you and he. I’ll leave that between you and he. I don’t see overpopulation anywhere in the world. I see people who aren’t willing to offer up more than they can themselves use up, so maybe we don’t have an over population problem as much as we have a problem with selfishness? Why not solve the problem by feeding people instead of killing them? Why not solve the problem by offering to accept the child that is unwanted and raise that child by another family instead of killing that child. The truth is it is more convenient to kill the child than it is to bring the child into the world, more selfishness. If you don’t believe in God, but I take ten children and provide for them, will you give me ten more? And if (my God) provides for them will you give me ten more? I don't have any disbelief in this matter.
Ok first off let me illustrate the fact that I would never for any moment consider my God to be a "he"...
I believe in My God...whether or not you take offense to that quite frankly is not my problem...
I'm of the same sentiment as you are...
I wouldn't for a minute consider abortion because I would provide for my child...
If everyone was of the same virtue we wouldn't be having this conversation...
:wah:...
I like people...I love people...I love them so much in fact I'm not willing to make two suffer for the likes of one entity...
Ok first off let me illustrate the fact that I would never for any moment consider my God to be a "he"...
I believe in My God...whether or not you take offense to that quite frankly is not my problem...
I'm of the same sentiment as you are...
I wouldn't for a minute consider abortion because I would provide for my child...
If everyone was of the same virtue we wouldn't be having this conversation...
:wah:...
I like people...I love people...I love them so much in fact I'm not willing to make two suffer for the likes of one entity...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K asks:
How do you not believe two lives are better than one?...Is life of no importance to you?(Personally a rhetorical question but by virtue of forum etiquette I have to ask)...
The answer is in your question. Yes, life is of importance to me. That's why I won't negate one life to save two. I won't say "this drowning man is important but over here are *two* drowning men which equals 'more' life so I'll save these two guys." Who am I to decide what level of value to place on a person? I understand completely what you're saying. I understand the angle you're taking. The backbone of our sentiment is the same- life has value. We just go about assigning that value differently.
How do you not believe two lives are better than one?...Is life of no importance to you?(Personally a rhetorical question but by virtue of forum etiquette I have to ask)...
The answer is in your question. Yes, life is of importance to me. That's why I won't negate one life to save two. I won't say "this drowning man is important but over here are *two* drowning men which equals 'more' life so I'll save these two guys." Who am I to decide what level of value to place on a person? I understand completely what you're saying. I understand the angle you're taking. The backbone of our sentiment is the same- life has value. We just go about assigning that value differently.
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957736 wrote: K asks:
The answer is in your question. Yes, life is of importance to me. That's why I won't negate one life to save two. I won't say "this drowning man is important but over here are *two* drowning men which equals 'more' life so I'll save these two guys." Who am I to decide what level of value to place on a person? I understand completely what you're saying. I understand the angle you're taking. The backbone of our sentiment is the same- life has value. We just go about assigning that value differently.
Well two is more than one...:wah:...
I understand your conservativeness...In fact,..I admire it...
I don't however agree...
The day we judge two people to be less important than one is the day humanity is immoral...As a whole...I couldn't think of a more immoral disposition than to make judgment of human life a virtue...
This is veering towards the death penalty...
I suppose what's left is in how others feel towards the matter...
I have a huge problem with "One is less than two" though...It's just not mathematically accurate...
The answer is in your question. Yes, life is of importance to me. That's why I won't negate one life to save two. I won't say "this drowning man is important but over here are *two* drowning men which equals 'more' life so I'll save these two guys." Who am I to decide what level of value to place on a person? I understand completely what you're saying. I understand the angle you're taking. The backbone of our sentiment is the same- life has value. We just go about assigning that value differently.
Well two is more than one...:wah:...
I understand your conservativeness...In fact,..I admire it...
I don't however agree...
The day we judge two people to be less important than one is the day humanity is immoral...As a whole...I couldn't think of a more immoral disposition than to make judgment of human life a virtue...
This is veering towards the death penalty...
I suppose what's left is in how others feel towards the matter...
I have a huge problem with "One is less than two" though...It's just not mathematically accurate...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K says:
I have a huge problem with "One is less than two" though...It's just not mathematically accurate...
I didn't say one was less than two. I said one was just as important as two, therefore how could I possibly assign more value to the majority? Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?
And no, if you go off onto the death penalty, I will be forced to slap you around a little. :wah:
I have a huge problem with "One is less than two" though...It's just not mathematically accurate...
I didn't say one was less than two. I said one was just as important as two, therefore how could I possibly assign more value to the majority? Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?
And no, if you go off onto the death penalty, I will be forced to slap you around a little. :wah:
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957743 wrote: K says:
I didn't say one was less than two. I said one was just as important as two, therefore how could I possibly assign more value to the majority? Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?
And no, if you go off onto the death penalty, I will be forced to slap you around a little. :wah:
Oh I'd like that...
:wah:...
But I completely understand your sentiment...
I'm talking about in instances of one threatening the livlihood of another...More specifically two so as to get my point of view across...
It's not as if it's not feasible...
Just because we live in the "presence" gives no credence to lack of warrant...
I'm talking about instances of a child dictating the well being of a greater majority...
I didn't say one was less than two. I said one was just as important as two, therefore how could I possibly assign more value to the majority? Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?
And no, if you go off onto the death penalty, I will be forced to slap you around a little. :wah:
Oh I'd like that...
:wah:...
But I completely understand your sentiment...
I'm talking about in instances of one threatening the livlihood of another...More specifically two so as to get my point of view across...
It's not as if it's not feasible...
Just because we live in the "presence" gives no credence to lack of warrant...
I'm talking about instances of a child dictating the well being of a greater majority...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957666 wrote: Whose to say either is immoral? I think abortion is a necessary and viable evil. Evil's not immoral? :-2
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;957597 wrote: Well forum etiquette most assuredly isn't of one of your pragmatic virtues...
You have no idea of the potential behind percentage is concerned...
I get every bit of everything...
All one needs is a bit of integrity.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself carefully, please, because that looks like an accusation of some type.
You have no idea of the potential behind percentage is concerned...
I get every bit of everything...
All one needs is a bit of integrity.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself carefully, please, because that looks like an accusation of some type.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
Accountable;957876 wrote: Evil's not immoral? :-2
Acc, it's not that cut and dried for me. I don't think abortion is immoral. I think it's killing something...I'm not going to pretend I think of a pregnancy as having no more than a tumor growing inside oneself, and I sure don't think it's a "good" thing but I also don't think it's immoral. And I don't think anyone's going to burn in hell for having or performing one. If you were sitting at my kitchen table right now and we were having this talk, I might (but probably not) would be able to express a little more clearly where I'm coming from but in truth, my feelings about it (all of them that is) are not something I want to put forth openly. By necessary evil I mean it's necessary because of human error.
Acc, it's not that cut and dried for me. I don't think abortion is immoral. I think it's killing something...I'm not going to pretend I think of a pregnancy as having no more than a tumor growing inside oneself, and I sure don't think it's a "good" thing but I also don't think it's immoral. And I don't think anyone's going to burn in hell for having or performing one. If you were sitting at my kitchen table right now and we were having this talk, I might (but probably not) would be able to express a little more clearly where I'm coming from but in truth, my feelings about it (all of them that is) are not something I want to put forth openly. By necessary evil I mean it's necessary because of human error.
Abortion poll - part 3
Accountable;957878 wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself carefully, please, because that looks like an accusation of some type.
No Acc no accusation...
Just reminding you that others to whom read this thread are just as important as us...
All logic needs to be exposed...All.
No Acc no accusation...
Just reminding you that others to whom read this thread are just as important as us...
All logic needs to be exposed...All.
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;957666 wrote: Whose to say either is immoral? I think abortion is a necessary and viable evil. If I had one I would never forget it nor would it be like I went in and had a wart removed. But I wouldn't consider myself of bad moral virtue by any means. We are speaking of this as if it's common knowledge that we all "know" abortion is immoral. I don't cotton to that. until it is your decision. I believe that you (general public) has no right to shame those who do.
i agree what you are saying
i agree what you are sayingAbortion poll - part 3
Accountable;957878 wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself carefully, please, because that looks like an accusation of some type.
If you'd thought I was implying that you had no integrity I was merely saying that in my own defense...Not being offensive towards you...
Huge difference...
If you'd thought I was implying that you had no integrity I was merely saying that in my own defense...Not being offensive towards you...
Huge difference...
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
until the end of time. this will be a very HOT topic. there will be those who remain pro choice and those we will never budge. it is hard to keep a cool head with this matter. many emotions are involved. but please. let us respect each others feelings. i am sure like my own. they are very deep rooted.
Abortion poll - part 3
Accountable;957878 wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself carefully, please, because that looks like an accusation of some type.
And for the record I need not be careful for I do not have any ill malice intended upon the likes of yourself...I know this because I have no ill malice intended on the likes of anyone...
:yh_bigsmi...
And for the record I need not be careful for I do not have any ill malice intended upon the likes of yourself...I know this because I have no ill malice intended on the likes of anyone...
:yh_bigsmi...
Abortion poll - part 3
southern yankee;958280 wrote: until the end of time. this will be a very HOT topic. there will be those who remain pro choice and those we will never budge. it is hard to keep a cool head with this matter. many emotions are involved. but please. let us respect each others feelings. i am sure like my own. they are very deep rooted.
very well said and ditto!
very well said and ditto!
Life is just to short for drama.
Abortion poll - part 3
I feel im not really articulate enough to get too heavily involved in this subject:o
But,,, I think its a bit easier to say give up a life for the greater good of others when you have'nt got that life in your belly:-3
But,,, I think its a bit easier to say give up a life for the greater good of others when you have'nt got that life in your belly:-3
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
kazalala;959804 wrote: I feel im not really articulate enough to get too heavily involved in this subject:o
But,,, I think its a bit easier to say give up a life for the greater good of others when you have'nt got that life in your belly:-3
:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap
Very well said!!
But,,, I think its a bit easier to say give up a life for the greater good of others when you have'nt got that life in your belly:-3
:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap
Very well said!!
Abortion poll - part 3
kazalala;959804 wrote: I feel im not really articulate enough to get too heavily involved in this subject:o
But,,, I think its a bit easier to say give up a life for the greater good of others when you have'nt got that life in your belly:-3
I wouldn't expect anyone could...In fact...I wouldn't personally and I hold anyone who does unethical if it weren't within their best interests medically...Medically could mean during the entire time one was pregnant to not having the sufficient means to provide healthcare for others...Others most often than not are to the parents as well as the child in question...
How anyone can willingly create circumstances knowing full well they cannot provide for a potential child is completely unethical.
But,,, I think its a bit easier to say give up a life for the greater good of others when you have'nt got that life in your belly:-3
I wouldn't expect anyone could...In fact...I wouldn't personally and I hold anyone who does unethical if it weren't within their best interests medically...Medically could mean during the entire time one was pregnant to not having the sufficient means to provide healthcare for others...Others most often than not are to the parents as well as the child in question...
How anyone can willingly create circumstances knowing full well they cannot provide for a potential child is completely unethical.
-
suzy_creamcheese
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:15 am
Abortion poll - part 3
im totally pro-choice.
If someone doesnt want a baby and contraception fails, then i see less harm in stopping the pregnancy early on, than carrying on with it when its not wanted.
I dont see it as immoral.
I dont feel comfortable with the idea later in pregnancy though.
If someone doesnt want a baby and contraception fails, then i see less harm in stopping the pregnancy early on, than carrying on with it when its not wanted.
I dont see it as immoral.
I dont feel comfortable with the idea later in pregnancy though.
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
See this is the whole thing in a nut shell. Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. it means giving every woman the choice to do it or not. pro choice people do not run around gathering women to have a abortion.
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960555 wrote: Well said Yankee.
We've had a spate of girls leaving babies on hospital steps and at maternal health care centres . Hiding their pregnancies the whole time . I think it would be better for them to not have to go through that kind of trauma. These girls arent immoral they obviously care about their babies but to have to go through that in the first place? That's shocking and sad.
And I would just like to inform everyone that doctors arent stupid. they'll make up a reason for a young girl to have an "Operation" so as to hide the fact from intolerant or violent parents. Violent boyfriends and families. Some girls are in mortal danger of others when they fall pregnant. Think about that for a moment. fuzzy, young girls here who have hid the fact. they were pregnant. out of fear, would throw their babies in dumpsters. which is more humane??
We've had a spate of girls leaving babies on hospital steps and at maternal health care centres . Hiding their pregnancies the whole time . I think it would be better for them to not have to go through that kind of trauma. These girls arent immoral they obviously care about their babies but to have to go through that in the first place? That's shocking and sad.
And I would just like to inform everyone that doctors arent stupid. they'll make up a reason for a young girl to have an "Operation" so as to hide the fact from intolerant or violent parents. Violent boyfriends and families. Some girls are in mortal danger of others when they fall pregnant. Think about that for a moment. fuzzy, young girls here who have hid the fact. they were pregnant. out of fear, would throw their babies in dumpsters. which is more humane??
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960555 wrote: Well said Yankee.
We've had a spate of girls leaving babies on hospital steps and at maternal health care centres . Hiding their pregnancies the whole time . I think it would be better for them to not have to go through that kind of trauma. These girls arent immoral they obviously care about their babies but to have to go through that in the first place? That's shocking and sad.
And I would just like to inform everyone that doctors arent stupid. they'll make up a reason for a young girl to have an "Operation" so as to hide the fact from intolerant or violent parents. Violent boyfriends and families. Some girls are in mortal danger of others when they fall pregnant. Think about that for a moment.
On the other side you have women microwaving their babies...
DAYTON, Ohio - A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by putting the baby in a microwave oven.
China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital. Bail was set Tuesday at $1 million.
“We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death,” said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner’s office.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.
Arnold was arrested soon after the baby’s death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because “there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings.”
The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause, Betz said.
Arnold’s lawyer, Jon Paul Rion, said his client had nothing to do with her child’s death and was stunned when investigators told her that a microwave might have been involved.
“China — as a mother and a person — was horrified that such an act could occur,” Rion said.
The night before the baby was taken to the hospital, Arnold and the child’s father went out for a short time and left Paris with a babysitter, Rion said. The mother didn’t sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious, Rion said.
Arnold has three other children.
In 2000, a Virginia woman was sentenced to five years in prison for killing her month-old son in a microwave oven. Elizabeth Renee Otte claimed she had no memory of cramming her son in the microwave and turning on the appliance in 1999. Experts said that Otte suffered from epilepsy and that her seizures were followed by blackouts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15937773/
This the the GD city I live in...
We've had a spate of girls leaving babies on hospital steps and at maternal health care centres . Hiding their pregnancies the whole time . I think it would be better for them to not have to go through that kind of trauma. These girls arent immoral they obviously care about their babies but to have to go through that in the first place? That's shocking and sad.
And I would just like to inform everyone that doctors arent stupid. they'll make up a reason for a young girl to have an "Operation" so as to hide the fact from intolerant or violent parents. Violent boyfriends and families. Some girls are in mortal danger of others when they fall pregnant. Think about that for a moment.
On the other side you have women microwaving their babies...
DAYTON, Ohio - A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by putting the baby in a microwave oven.
China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital. Bail was set Tuesday at $1 million.
“We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death,” said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner’s office.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.
Arnold was arrested soon after the baby’s death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because “there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings.”
The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause, Betz said.
Arnold’s lawyer, Jon Paul Rion, said his client had nothing to do with her child’s death and was stunned when investigators told her that a microwave might have been involved.
“China — as a mother and a person — was horrified that such an act could occur,” Rion said.
The night before the baby was taken to the hospital, Arnold and the child’s father went out for a short time and left Paris with a babysitter, Rion said. The mother didn’t sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious, Rion said.
Arnold has three other children.
In 2000, a Virginia woman was sentenced to five years in prison for killing her month-old son in a microwave oven. Elizabeth Renee Otte claimed she had no memory of cramming her son in the microwave and turning on the appliance in 1999. Experts said that Otte suffered from epilepsy and that her seizures were followed by blackouts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15937773/
This the the GD city I live in...
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960653 wrote: Who are we actually angry at here ? young girls ? women who want an abortion because it will interfere with their lifestyle? girls and women who had the audacity to open their legs and have sex ? who exactly is this thread concerning itself with?
for every woman who has an abortion there is a male inpregnating her. yes these boys get off Scot free. the girl goes through all the emotional and physical pain. while the boys go merrily on their way.:mad:
for every woman who has an abortion there is a male inpregnating her. yes these boys get off Scot free. the girl goes through all the emotional and physical pain. while the boys go merrily on their way.
:mad:Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960650 wrote: You'll never get rid of the whackoes mate ..unfortunetly they'll always be around.
Also people do weird things out of fear.
My belief is more so that the majority of abortions having gone through with are done so by parents to whom cannot nor are not willing to raise a child let alone adequately...Which ultimately brings me to my emphasis that if abortion were illegal you would see more babies having to go through what I can only imagine is shere anguish...Far worse be it a child left to starve to death in a GD garbage can in the alley...
I'd go as far to lessen the cost and seriously contemplate having the state pay for the entire procedure at 50% respectively...
Also people do weird things out of fear.
My belief is more so that the majority of abortions having gone through with are done so by parents to whom cannot nor are not willing to raise a child let alone adequately...Which ultimately brings me to my emphasis that if abortion were illegal you would see more babies having to go through what I can only imagine is shere anguish...Far worse be it a child left to starve to death in a GD garbage can in the alley...
I'd go as far to lessen the cost and seriously contemplate having the state pay for the entire procedure at 50% respectively...
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960653 wrote: Who are we actually angry at here ? young girls ? women who want an abortion because it will interfere with their lifestyle? girls and women who had the audacity to open their legs and have sex ? who exactly is this thread concerning itself with?
I'm concerned with that in which has plagued humanity from it's inception...Consensus...Far easier is it to voice "your" opinion and be satisfied than to actually come up with a reasonable solution...
fuzzy butt;960653 wrote:
for every woman who has an abortion there is a male inpregnating her.
Agreed.
I'm concerned with that in which has plagued humanity from it's inception...Consensus...Far easier is it to voice "your" opinion and be satisfied than to actually come up with a reasonable solution...
fuzzy butt;960653 wrote:
for every woman who has an abortion there is a male inpregnating her.
Agreed.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
K.Snyder;960376 wrote: How anyone can willingly create circumstances knowing full well they cannot provide for a potential child is completely unethical.
I completely agree with this statement. The fact is that having sex creates those circumstances, and that's where people put their heads in the sand. That's the point where freedom of choice - and considering the consequences of choices - should be emphasized, not once the consequence happens.
I completely agree with this statement. The fact is that having sex creates those circumstances, and that's where people put their heads in the sand. That's the point where freedom of choice - and considering the consequences of choices - should be emphasized, not once the consequence happens.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Abortion poll - part 3
Accountable;960723 wrote: I completely agree with this statement. The fact is that having sex creates those circumstances, and that's where people put their heads in the sand. That's the point where freedom of choice - and considering the consequences of choices - should be emphasized, not once the consequence happens.
Which is why abortion has always been and always will be a necessary evil. Sex is human nature and probably the biggest drive other than hate and jealousy. It's completely unreasonable and idealistic (unrealistic) to expect people to refrain from it even if they can't provide for the possible result.
Which is why abortion has always been and always will be a necessary evil. Sex is human nature and probably the biggest drive other than hate and jealousy. It's completely unreasonable and idealistic (unrealistic) to expect people to refrain from it even if they can't provide for the possible result.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960653 wrote: for every woman who has an abortion there is a male inpregnating her.southern yankee;960658 wrote: yes these boys get off Scot free. the girl goes through all the emotional and physical pain. while the boys go merrily on their way.:mad:
Exactly, which is why parents need to impress on their daughters that every time - every time - they have sex they are gambling against Nature on pregnancy. The stakes are too high for just fun. It's too easy for the boy to deny and run, and too difficult to prove what he did and hold him accountable. What's anybody going to do to him?
:mad:Exactly, which is why parents need to impress on their daughters that every time - every time - they have sex they are gambling against Nature on pregnancy. The stakes are too high for just fun. It's too easy for the boy to deny and run, and too difficult to prove what he did and hold him accountable. What's anybody going to do to him?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
RedGlitter;960732 wrote: Which is why abortion has always been and always will be a necessary evil. Sex is human nature and probably the biggest drive other than hate and jealousy. It's completely unreasonable and idealistic (unrealistic) to expect people to refrain from it even if they can't provide for the possible result.
Can't agree with ya, gorgeous. This kind of behavior requires a decision. There are literally dozens of decision points between that spark in the eye and intercourse, any one of which can be a place to stop the process. Billions of people have done it. It's not unrealistic because it's been done again and again.
Can't agree with ya, gorgeous. This kind of behavior requires a decision. There are literally dozens of decision points between that spark in the eye and intercourse, any one of which can be a place to stop the process. Billions of people have done it. It's not unrealistic because it's been done again and again.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Abortion poll - part 3
fuzzy butt;960749 wrote: woah!!! do you see what you just did there?
What? What?!? Was it impressive?
What? What?!? Was it impressive?