Originally Posted By Mr X **I will never understand the argument by people who say " I believe abortion is wrong and would never have one, but i dont believe we can force this opinion on everyone."** Funny, since that's pretty much my entire philosophy on the issue. I believe abortion is wrong and sad. I believe there are plenty of ways to avoid putting yourself in the position of having to consider one. I believe that they should be rare to the point of almost non-existent (like, in extreme cases such as rape or extraordinary danger to the mother if she carries the baby to term). But I also don't believe they should ever be unavailable. Which interestingly puts me in the "pro-choice" category, even though I am for all intents and purposes strongly pro-life.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper There is a lot of common ground among most people on this issue, but the extremists on both sides want to impose their extreme views and override common sense. The vast majority of Americans (and I daresay people across the world) don't favor an outright ban on abortion, nor do they favor abortion on demand. They want responsible restrictions. They want abortion available in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. They want doctors and patients to make good, common-sense judgments EARLY in the term ... very early. But at a point abortion ceases to be a responsible, humane option ... especially if abortion is merely last-minute birth control, and especially when the child develops into a sensing, growing, clearly human organism many, many months prior to birth. They want abortion in emergencies, NOT abortion on demand or abortion for convenience, or abortion procedures that are barbaric and inhumane. And they certainly don't want minors to have them without parental knowledge and consent. All we have to do is get involved, let our expectations be known to leaders and would-be leaders, and to those in society who are sexually active, and elect those who will see that society's implementation of abortion policy is sensitive, responsible, thoughtful, and humane.
Originally Posted By jdub >>It has nothing to do with adoption. It has to do with having a child that you don't want. That is sick behavior.<< You will have to forgive me for thinking this still sounds like a position AGAINST those who find themselves pregnant, considering the option of putting that child up for adoption.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The vast majority of Americans ... don't favor ... abortion on demand. << I believe they do. All these caveats about rape and incest are just virtual asterisks for anti-abortion people. What the majority of americans favor is leaving the decision with the woman and her doctor - not the government. Will a handful of women abuse their right and use abortion as a late form of birth countrol? A few, but even then likely only once. The procedure itself is a sobering event that has a significant impact on the woman. But don't presume to come between a woman and her decision to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason she chooses. You may believe that it's a "baby" and she may too, but you don't have the right to make that decision for her. Does that make me an "extremist"? I don't think so. >> The root problem is not abortion. It's the misuse of sex that leads to so many. << As much as you may want to, you cannot legislate consensual sex between adults either. You cannot legislate your brand of morality into law.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You will have to forgive me for thinking this still sounds like a position AGAINST those who find themselves " I think someone having a child with the knowledge of never wanting it is actually very sick. Yes. I mean, "I'm going to have a baby, then never see it again." That's really a lot of mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to do that. That's not a good thing to do. I think it's far more troublesome than having an abortion.
Originally Posted By jdub ////>> The root problem is not abortion. It's the misuse of sex that leads to so many. << As much as you may want to, you cannot legislate consensual sex between adults either. You cannot legislate your brand of morality into law. ///// Wh-uuu--huh?? Does 2 + 2 now equal 17? There's not correlation between those two statements. The first statement, that I can interpret as saying people don't exercise their "choice" as early as they should ("should I be having sex/now/and with this person, and should I be using at least one form of protection") does NOT say, as the responding 2nd statement suggests, that legislation is in order. 17, huh?
Originally Posted By jdub >>I think someone having a child with the knowledge of never wanting it is actually very sick. Yes. I mean, "I'm going to have a baby, then never see it again." That's really a lot of mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to do that. That's not a good thing to do. I think it's far more troublesome than having an abortion.<< Okay, that's exactly the line of thinking I refused to believe was actually going on. And I think the line of reasoning is far more the "sick behavior" than the choosing to give a child to a wanting home rather than not allowing it to be born.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's a two-step problem to get to 17. Outlawing most abortions is indeed legislating morality. And it's easier to do if you believe that unwanted pregnancies derive from "misusing sex". Sex is greater than just procreation of the race.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And I think the line of reasoning is far more the "sick behavior" than the choosing to give a child to a wanting home rather than not allowing it to be born." You really think these kids are all wanted by waiting homes? Most of the people who have kids who are unwanted keep them. Do you have any idea what it costs to adopt a child? And you have no idea whether the kid is drug addicted, a fetal alcohol baby, or some other thing. It's not so clear cut. If you don't want to bring a child into the world, you should not.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ">> The vast majority of Americans ... don't favor ... abortion on demand. << I believe they do. All these caveats about rape and incest are just virtual asterisks for anti-abortion people. What the majority of americans favor is leaving the decision with the woman and her doctor - not the government. Will a handful of women abuse their right and use abortion as a late form of birth countrol? A few, but even then likely only once. The procedure itself is a sobering event that has a significant impact on the woman. But don't presume to come between a woman and her decision to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason she chooses. You may believe that it's a "baby" and she may too, but you don't have the right to make that decision for her. Does that make me an "extremist"? I don't think so." Completely agree.
Originally Posted By cmpaley *breaks silence* The bigoted and hateful posts against Christians in general and the Pope in particular, are EXACTLY why I stopped posting in this section. You can't speak logically to hatred this deep and ingrained. Truth is, pro-lifers and pro-choicer will NEVER be able to reach a dialogue because pro-lifers believe that human life beings and conception and must be protected and pro-choicers believe that it's about a choice and not a life. There's no common ground, no matter what anyone tries to say.
Originally Posted By Mr X You can't speak logically to blind obedience either. This particular pope is a really bad guy, a true criminal who knowingly participated in AND ORGANIZED blanket cover ups and the intentional harboring and protection of rapists. Compared to him, Nixon was a saint. I have no particular "hatred" of the papacy in general, but frankly I'd like to see this guy prosecuted by an international court just like they did Milosovitch, given his standing as the leader of a sovereign power. I'm not holding my breath however. I've provided evidence right here on LP for anyone who is interested.
Originally Posted By Mr X Now can someone tell me how that statement, along with the evidence available for all to see, is in any way "bigoted"?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You cannot legislate your brand of morality into law.<< Virtually all law is an effort to legislate morality. Because our society believes it is immoral to take things that don't belong to you, there are laws against stealing. Because our society believes it is immoral to harm others, there are laws against assault and battery. Because our society believes it is wrong to bear false witness, there are laws against libel and slander. What legislation cannot do is make people become moral. It can only punish those who transgress against that which our society agrees is moral.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Incidently, the Pope who compared abortion to holocaust was John Paul II. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4288103.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/eur ope/4288103.stm</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Stealing and assault are not "moral" issues.<< Of course they are. Like it or not, Doug's post 35 is exactly correct.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Stealing and assault are not "moral" issues. These are crimes.<< They are crimes because our society believes it is immoral to steal and hurt people. "Crimes" are not identified in a vacuum.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And hate crimes are clearly about morals by definition. We find these morally repugnant, and tack on extra penalties for these.
