PDA

View Full Version : Abortion




brandon
10-25-2007, 10:04 AM
I have alot of really retarded democrat friends. They have been driving me insane with thier constant attacks on ron paul. The only point against him they really make is that he supports overturning Roe v Wade. It seems like they put Roe V Wade on a much higher level of importance then our own consitution. These people are driving me insane. Here is a blog post I recently made to try and explain the situation to them. Let me know if I am forgetting anything...

Abortion

It is starting to seem like everyone I know is obsessed with abortion.



I tell people about Ron Paul, and they come back with "No I cant support him because he wants to overturn Roe V Wade". I try to explain that it should be overturned because the federal government does not have power to issue a ruling like that. I try to explain that abortions would still be legal in pennsylvania even if Roe v Wade was overturned....people dont care. They automatically hate him because they heard he wants to overturn Roe v Wade.

I understand how some people are extremely zealous pro-lifers. This is thier religous belief and they think they are on a mission from god to stop abortions. Crazy? Yes....but it is still understandable. They think abortion is murder so they are trying to stop murder of the innocent. Not that crazy when you really think about it.

What I dont understand at all is how people become so passionatly pro-choice. These are people who have never studied birth, are not doctors, yet they are 100% convinced that making sure everyone in the world can have abortions is a top priority. It is like these people are planning to have 50 abortions in the future.

We live in a country where legislation like the "patriot" act is routinely passed, we are in a never ending occupation of iraq and about to goto war with Iran. Our president talks about World War 3 like it is unavoidable. We are being taxed by an illegal institution (The federal reserve) at much higher rates then we were prior to the American revolution. We have an extremely bloated budget, are trillions in debt, and the value of the dollar is continuosly falling. We have secret torture camps all around the world, and people can be indefinitly detained at these places without charges. Not to mention the insanely expensive "war on drugs". Abuses of civil liberties are completely out of control and getting worse by the day.

I tell people I know a man named Ron Paul who will solve all of these things And they say, "Oh he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, i cant vote for him". Ahhh! It makes me want to pull my hair out.

I am pro-choice. I dont think anyone knows "when life begins", so I am pro-choice. We dont have enough information to say it is murder. I certainly dont think it is murder in the first few months. Near the end of the pregnancy it gets much more complicated. The way our current laws are, a women could have an abortion a day before she is scheduled to deliver her baby and face no repercussions. If the next day, after she gave birth, she killed her baby, she would goto jail for life. That doesn't really make sence to me.

So supporting Roe v Wade is supporting that people far away, who believe abortion is murder, can still have abortions without leaving thier state. It makes no freaking sence to me how people get all fired up and passionate about supporting Roe v Wade.

So can someone give me some input about why they so strongly support Roe V Wade? And is this really enough to convince you not to vote for OB/GYN Ron Paul?

tfelice
10-25-2007, 10:20 AM
I'm pro-life, but I'll give you the logic as I see it.

"Roe v Wade = pro-choice = being open minded". That's the newspeak of it all.

How many times have you heard someone say "well I am personally against abortions, but I support Roe v Wade". Come to think of it how many times have you heard someone say "I for as many abortions as possible".

Anyway. Roe v Wade has been around for 34 years which means that anyone 50 or younger has lived with it for their entire adult lives. I doubt many at all have ever read the case law on it, but they support it because of the way it has been pounded into people's heads for all of their lives, and opposing it would make them intolerant of other's views - and you know we can't be intolerant, it's the carnal sin of the PC culture.

That's my 2 cents.

Original_Intent
10-25-2007, 10:25 AM
I am pro-choice. I dont think anyone knows "when life begins", so I am pro-choice.

This is exactly why I am pro-life. If we are going to err, we had better do so on the side of possibly not murdering someone.

What is funny is that many of the pro-choice people argue AGAINST capital punishment because we might accidentally "Kill an innocent person"

I bet you not one person on death row, even if they didn't commit the crime they are in jail for, is anywhere near as innocent as an unborn child.

TVMH
10-25-2007, 10:39 AM
You might point them to RP's interview with Adam Curry.

RP stated very clearly, I believe, that pregnancy cannot be proven in the first few days after intercourse, so taking a pill like RU-486 that prevents a pregnancy from going further may or may not be "murder"...but by overturning Roe v. Wade, this distinction would be left to the several states.

One would think that "pro-choice" people would WANT this authority/power of distinction decentralized (i.e., MORE choice) since recent history has shown that control over the federal government fluctuates between those with "conservative" and "liberal" ideologies.

But, then again, that assumes that people are thinking logically and rationally. :rolleyes:

brandon
10-25-2007, 10:41 AM
I'm pro-life, but I'll give you the logic as I see it.

"Roe v Wade = pro-choice = being open minded". That's the newspeak of it all.

How many times have you heard someone say "well I am personally against abortions, but I support Roe v Wade". Come to think of it how many times have you heard someone say "I for as many abortions as possible".

Anyway. Roe v Wade has been around for 34 years which means that anyone 50 or younger has lived with it for their entire adult lives. I doubt many at all have ever read the case law on it, but they support it because of the way it has been pounded into people's heads for all of their lives, and opposing it would make them intolerant of other's views - and you know we can't be intolerant, it's the carnal sin of the PC culture.

That's my 2 cents.


Yea makes sence....I'm so sick of this PC bullshit.

kaleidoscope eyes
10-25-2007, 11:15 AM
well, when first introduced to RP by my husband a couple months ago, I agreed with everything BUT I saw the thing about overturning RvW. I was like WHOA! no way. But, I didn't understand fully, it was a pure knee jerk reaction, i thought it was like a complete absolute ban on abortion. I was directed to come back and take a closer look and read more carefully RP's postition. When I clearly understood that states should have this right to allow, or not allow abortion, I was like, I'm cool with that, now I have no problem backing RP 100%. I guess I'm pro-choice, I know I couldn't get an abortion myself, or recommend it to anyone else, BUT, i would still like to see a SAFE avenue for women who are absolutely going to have one, no matter what any person or law tells them, ya know?
I consider myself reasonable, that's why I have no problem with the RvW issue anymore, if you are dealing with stubborn, unreasonable types, I don't know what to tell you.

filmmaker58
10-25-2007, 11:22 AM
I think that the bottom line of this question is, that it's a really hard question, and there is no right answer for every situation, and thus, it cannot, and should not be made at a national level. I used to be pro-choice, and my reasoning was a lot of "big picture" things. Overpopulation, crime rates (theoretically by unwanted children who were raised poorly) and a woman's right for a chance to make the biggest decision of her life, to be a mother. but on the other side, you never know where the next Einstien is going to come from. Some of the greatest people I know were "unplanned" babies (I'm one too) and those kids deserve a chance. I'm on the fence about it, but what I do know is that the decision should not be made at the federal level.

rs3515
10-25-2007, 11:30 AM
Having talked with quite a few women about this, here's what I've learned:


Patriot Act, Iraq War and everything else happening in regards to the world are not as personal as abortion. For most women, all those other things are very nebulous, but abortion is direct and clear, whether for them or if they are thinking about another woman.
Even if Ron Paul wants to allow for discussion at the state level, and he's ok with the morning after pill, it is a step backward from those who are pro-choice. The question is, why would they concede anything to those who are pro-life when they have already won the battle and there is no upside for them?
More than one woman I've talked to is fearful that their state will be the one that bans abortion. The worry is midnight runs across the state line or using unsafe clinics ... which puts them back to where things were in the 1960s.


I've thought about this long and hard, and I'm not really sure there is an answer to this if a pro-choice person is staunchly opposed to any compromise.

Man from La Mancha
10-25-2007, 11:33 AM
There is one simple flaw in the pro choice argument when they say a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. The baby(fetus) is a different DNA structure than hers and therefore is not part of her body but just dependent on it. The DNA is a combination of the mother and father thus making it a separate "individual"

.

kylejack
10-25-2007, 11:33 AM
I'm not crazy about Ron Paul's position, and I don't look forward to back alley abortions in states that ban it.

rs3515
10-25-2007, 11:34 AM
The baby(fetus) is a different DNA structure than hers and therefore is not part of her body but just dependent on it. The DNA is a combination of the mother and father thus making it a separate "individual".

Um yeah ... I'd pay to see you have *that* discussion with a strong pro-choice person face-to-face. :rolleyes:

Man from La Mancha
10-25-2007, 11:42 AM
I'm not crazy about Ron Paul's position, and I don't look forward to back alley abortions in states that ban it.Hello;) has anybody heard of modern transportation? Many flights can be had to nearby cities for less than $100 round trip and one can be sure that like Las Vegas Casinos the big abortion clinics will include that in their price to get one there. Or by bus ,car, train.

rs3515
10-25-2007, 11:46 AM
Hello;) has anybody heard of modern transportation? Many flights can be had to nearby cities for less than $100 round trip and one can be sure that like Las Vegas Casinos the big abortion clinics will include that in their price to get one there. Or by bus ,car, train.

Um, tell that to a 14 year old who's scared and doesn't want her parents to know what's going on. Many young girls died that way.

kylejack
10-25-2007, 11:46 AM
Hello;) has anybody heard of modern transportation? Many flights can be had to nearby cities for less than $100 round trip and one can be sure that like Las Vegas Casinos the big abortion clinics will include that in their price to get one there. Or by bus ,car, train.
States can also pass laws making it illegal to transport a person across state lines for an abortion. Legislators already tried to do this for minors on the federal level.

Zarxrax
10-25-2007, 12:43 PM
Here is an argument for a woman who doesn't see why she should concede anything on RvW. Perhaps it's not the strongest argument, but perhaps it could get through to some.

While it's at the federal level, the entire country is subject to either legalized abortions or banned abortions. Right now, the whole country has legalized abortions, so it's very easy to go with the kneejerk response and say we should keep things how they are.

However, the conservatives and religious in this country have been working very hard for a LONG time to get abortion banned. Don't you think that given enough time, they might succeed? What will these women do when abortion is banned throughout the entire country? Do they think they might support leaving the issue to the states then?

It's hard to compromise when you hold the upper hand, but no one keeps the upper hand forever.

Man from La Mancha
10-25-2007, 12:55 PM
States can also pass laws making it illegal to transport a person across state lines for an abortion. Legislators already tried to do this for minors on the federal level.
The right to travel is a born right, maybe they couldn't do it because they can't



Um, tell that to a 14 year old who's scared and doesn't want her parents to know what's going on. Many young girls died that way.
Does that mean now in every state a 14 yr old can get an abortion without parental consult?

.

Man from La Mancha
10-25-2007, 12:59 PM
It's hard to compromise when you hold the upper hand, but no one keeps the upper hand forever.Thats impossible just too many differences in each state. We have 43 states allowing concealed gun carry yet 7 don't allow it. We'll have lots of people like you to see it won't be done.:)

.

kylejack
10-25-2007, 01:03 PM
The right to travel is a born right, maybe they couldn't do it because they can't
States can and do pass laws against natural rights. They could pass a law against this.

Hope
10-25-2007, 01:42 PM
By Man of La Mancha's logic, fetus in fetu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu) would not legally be allowed to be cut out from human beings. Whether it's a fetus in fetu or a tumor or a zygote, if it's in my body then I believe I have every right to have it removed.

We all know that the South would ban abortion if it could. If you get raped in Florida, you're going to have to pay around $500 to get to the nearest abortion clinic, if it's even possible they'll let you in because of state laws that would likely be passed.

I like the idea of federalism, but I'm not sold on the idea that states should be allowed to pass whatever totalitarian laws they want.

rs3515
10-25-2007, 02:36 PM
It's hard to compromise when you hold the upper hand, but no one keeps the upper hand forever.

I do agree with you, but also think there are many people who are strongly entrenched about this. Their viewpoint seems to be, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". I also understand why they think this way, because there are plenty of pro-lifers that would try to do just that. ;)

brandon
10-25-2007, 03:14 PM
Ok, i really didnt want this thread to become an abortion debate.

What I wanted was an answer to my problems. I have several friends, almsot exclusivley women, who think Ron Paul is a "nut job" and will not even consider him for a second because of his position on Roe v Wade. They are even starting to attack me personally for this.

Is there anyway I can get these people to see past this one issue??

brandon
10-25-2007, 03:17 PM
Their viewpoint seems to be, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".


But the thing is, that essentially is MY viewpoint, altough I apply it a little different. I feel if you give the federal government an inch of power over issues like this, they take a mile. First they pass Roe V Wade, then they think they can block states from legalizing medical marijuana (which interestingly, most of my friends who like roe v wade do not like that the feds impose these marijuana laws over states) etc etc

rs3515
10-25-2007, 03:56 PM
But the thing is, that essentially is MY viewpoint, altough I apply it a little different.

Maybe just that some pro-choice people are the "totalitarian regime of the roe v. wade republic". ;)

Man from La Mancha
10-25-2007, 03:56 PM
By Man of La Mancha's logic, fetus in fetu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu) would not legally be allowed to be cut out from human beings. Whether it's a fetus in fetu or a tumor or a zygote, if it's in my body then I believe I have every right to have it removed.

We all know that the South would ban abortion if it could. If you get raped in Florida, you're going to have to pay around $500 to get to the nearest abortion clinic, if it's even possible they'll let you in because of state laws that would likely be passed.

I like the idea of federalism, but I'm not sold on the idea that states should be allowed to pass whatever totalitarian laws they want.
I have ask this question 3 times and wish some one would answer this for me. Why have an abortion you put that zygot there? Is it because ones can't take birth control or go oral? If an abortion is for convience 99% of the time, than the man can also demand an abortion so he doesn't have to pay for 18yr. Whats good for the gander is good for the goose.

Also Ron is saying is do it right by the constitution and make it an amendment. Or are you afraid that 2/3's would find it repulsive and one would have to be responsible for ones actions.


Ok, i really didnt want this thread to become an abortion debate.

What I wanted was an answer to my problems. I have several friends, almsot exclusivley women, who think Ron Paul is a "nut job" and will not even consider him for a second because of his position on Roe v Wade. They are even starting to attack me personally for this.

Is there anyway I can get these people to see past this one issue?? Just tell them the only freedom they might have left is the ability to abort but the economy will collapse, they will lose their jobs, their friends and relatives will be drafted, the war will go on forever and more 100,000's will die but they can still screw all they want with no personable responsibility. I now it sounds drastic but they don't sound like they will change their minds so just say it and walk away and get new friends.(this is not an attack just a statement)

.

rs3515
10-25-2007, 04:02 PM
Ok, i really didnt want this thread to become an abortion debate.

What I wanted was an answer to my problems. I have several friends, almsot exclusivley women, who think Ron Paul is a "nut job" and will not even consider him for a second because of his position on Roe v Wade. They are even starting to attack me personally for this.

Is there anyway I can get these people to see past this one issue??

I think it's really a hard one. Made a couple of posts earlier to that effect. I think the best you can do is appeal to their sensibility that the religious right keeps chipping away and will do so until the tables have been turned, and they have made lots of progress in recent years. The best long term solution is one that takes it out of the federal government's hands and makes it a state-focused issue.

Along with it you can make the argument that a number of states have attempted to pass same-sex marriage bans in recent years and have failed. While religious groups may be upset about certain things, it always isn't reflected if the issue is taken to the electorate to decide.

This was from a NYTimes article in 2004:
"Just four months after an alliance of conservative Christians was threatening a churchgoer revolt unless President Bush championed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, members say they have been surprised and disappointed by what they call a tepid response from the pews."

inibo
10-25-2007, 04:07 PM
I am pro-choice. I dont think anyone knows "when life begins", so I am pro-choice. We dont have enough information to say it is murder.


Please read http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Here is part of the introduction:


The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists — not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question.

When I first read this article I didn't like it. It posed difficult challenges to my preconceptions. Some times the truth is painful.

There are accompanying articles here: http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html#science

Meatwasp
10-25-2007, 04:22 PM
Ok, i really didnt want this thread to become an abortion debate.

What I wanted was an answer to my problems. I have several friends, almsot exclusivley women, who think Ron Paul is a "nut job" and will not even consider him for a second because of his position on Roe v Wade. They are even starting to attack me personally for this.

Is there anyway I can get these people to see past this one issue??

I knew a woman that had an abortion and didn't think much about it until she was taking a high security job and had to take a test on a lie detector. She was asked if she ever comitted a crime.The abortion showed up and freaked her . She later had three fine boys but she always felt like there was one child missing.
Could this be a strong bond even at an early age?

jblosser
10-25-2007, 04:26 PM
Ok, i really didnt want this thread to become an abortion debate.

What I wanted was an answer to my problems. I have several friends, almsot exclusivley women, who think Ron Paul is a "nut job" and will not even consider him for a second because of his position on Roe v Wade. They are even starting to attack me personally for this.

It usually gets that personal for two main reasons:

1) People choose to perceive an anti-abortion position as slavery because women are being told they cannot opt to have absolute sovereignty over their own bodies. Slavery is personal, and many don't object to violating any law if it secured something they perceived as a greater good.

2) People accept the notion that if abortions were illegal, we'd have a bunch of coat hanger abortions, and many women would die. Many argue that if the law contributes to people being hurt, it is wrong.

Most people can see at least part of both of these points, the question becomes where the law is in fact allowed to encroach on individual liberty to protect another's life or liberty, and that works in both directions for this discussion.

For those that see unborn life as something that deserves legal protection, there's no question that life has to be protected even if it's a hard decision and means hard consequences for those involved. It's also illegal to shoot and kill people and take their food, even if you yourself will starve if you do not, for example.

For those that see unborn life as something that shouldn't be legally protected, ie as another case like self-defense against agression where it's ok to take life, there's similarly no question that these other concerns (slavery, people dying to botched illegal abortions) have to be the deciding issues.

BTW, I would be remis if I didn't at least mention that those that are concerned about an epidemic of coat hanger abortions should at least be aware that one of the individuals responsible for Roe v. Wade has indicated that they knowingly lied about the number of those occurrances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson Whether you believe he was lying then or think he's lying now, it at least has to be taken into consideration for a rational discussion.


Is there anyway I can get these people to see past this one issue??

Probably not, apart from getting them to realize that if we don't see real change soon, we are not going to have the luxury of debating this kind of thing while the economy falls down around us.

nike
10-27-2007, 11:15 PM
I am pro choice and will always be so. This is the single issue that makes me step back from supporting Ron Paul 100%



The way our current laws are, a women could have an abortion a day before she is scheduled to deliver her baby and face no repercussions. If the next day, after she gave birth, she killed her baby, she would goto jail for life. That doesn't really make sence to me.


This is NOT what Roe v Wade says at all, and the reason why there is so much mis information about the Supreme Court decision.

Abortion on demand is only legal in the 1st trimester of pregnancy. In the 2nd trimester it is only legal if a doctor says it's necessary and the woman must have the procedure done at an approved hospital or clinic. In the 3rd trimester abortion is illegal, except in extreme cases where the woman's life is in danger.

That is the truth about Roe v Wade. Political organizations such as Right to Life have lied repeatedly to sway women away from exercising their reproductive freedom. Oh look there's that word.

Back in the 1950's my father in law drove an ambulance at night when he was in college. He told me that two thirds of the emergency calls he responded to were women who had self induced a miscarriage at home and were hemorrhaging to death. Because of that experience he was pro choice because he knew providing a safe, legal procedure saved women's lives. This is the ugly part pro lifers never talk about.

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. That is the ultimate statement of an individual's freedom to choose.

Zarxrax
10-29-2007, 07:45 AM
Ok, i really didnt want this thread to become an abortion debate.

What I wanted was an answer to my problems. I have several friends, almsot exclusivley women, who think Ron Paul is a "nut job" and will not even consider him for a second because of his position on Roe v Wade. They are even starting to attack me personally for this.

Is there anyway I can get these people to see past this one issue??

Ask them why they are so fixated on this divisive NON-ISSUE. How many presidents have we had over the years that have vowed to stop abortion? How many times has Row vs Wade been overturned so far? Yea... sounds like we're REALLY in danger of losing that one, huh?

Please remind them that despite what they may have come to believe after 2 terms of Bush's presidency, the president of the United States is NOT a dictator, and can't just simply make up whatever laws he wants. This guy is the only real hope for America, and they aren't going to vote for him because of his opinion on a single issue, that more than likely isn't even going to be an issue?!

JosephTheLibertarian
10-29-2007, 07:57 AM
I'm abortion neutral, I'd abstain from any vote on abortion at the state level.

jmarinara
10-29-2007, 08:50 AM
We live in a country where legislation like the "patriot" act is routinely passed, we are in a never ending occupation of iraq and about to goto war with Iran. Our president talks about World War 3 like it is unavoidable. We are being taxed by an illegal institution (The federal reserve) at much higher rates then we were prior to the American revolution. We have an extremely bloated budget, are trillions in debt, and the value of the dollar is continuosly falling. We have secret torture camps all around the world, and people can be indefinitly detained at these places without charges. Not to mention the insanely expensive "war on drugs". Abuses of civil liberties are completely out of control and getting worse by the day.

Well said!! I'm going to make a copy of this and send it to a couple of friends of mine. Add to the fact that I think some states will have a legit chance at ending abortion, this is about every reason why I support Ron Paul.




I am pro-choice. I dont think anyone knows "when life begins", so I am pro-choice. We dont have enough information to say it is murder. I certainly dont think it is murder in the first few months. Near the end of the pregnancy it gets much more complicated. The way our current laws are, a women could have an abortion a day before she is scheduled to deliver her baby and face no repercussions. If the next day, after she gave birth, she killed her baby, she would goto jail for life. That doesn't really make sence to me.

Question for you, if the pre-born child is not alive and human, what is it? If in the later months it becomes hard to justify abortion, then what is different about about it in the early months, or the early days? Basically, at what point for you does the baby become alive and a person?

Just so you know, I think that the only reasonable position is that a pre-born child is undeniably human, undeniably alive and therefore undeniably a person from the moment of conception. I pray for the day that we elect leaders with a sense of morality and they will restore the rights of the pre-born to our land, execute justice against the murderers, and end this holocaust (and make no mistake, that's exactly what it is) once and for all in out country.

I'm curious to hear why you feel differently.


On the point of talking to pro-choice folks about RP, this is what I usually do. Stress to them that if the (so-called) right to have an abortion hangs on a court decision, then it is only as strong as that court. It wouldn't take much under the current system to overturn abortion in this country, quite simply we just need to political will to do it. The president could do what Jefferson and Jackson did and refuse to enforce a Supreme Court Decision. The congress could remove the federal courts jurisdiction on matters of human life. Lot's could happen.

BUT, if the fed. gov. was out of the picture, the matter would be decided along a wide spectrum of ideas. There would be states that would completely outlaw it, there would be states that would give you tax breaks for having abortions, and there would be many states that would fall somewhere in between. But at least you'd have real choices.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 08:53 AM
Question for you, if the pre-born child is not alive and human, what is it? If in the later months it becomes hard to justify abortion, then what is different about about it in the early months, or the early days? Basically, at what point for you does the baby become alive and a person?
A small collection of cells is not recognizable as a human being. It can't feel pain, its not sentient. Its just a few cells.

jmarinara
10-29-2007, 09:07 AM
A small collection of cells is not recognizable as a human being. It can't feel pain, its not sentient. Its just a few cells.

Are they human cells?

Is your definition of life being sentient and able to feel pain? If that's true then you argue with the classical scientific definition of life, and under your definition a percentage of the disabled would, I suppose, be dead.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-29-2007, 09:08 AM
The Libertarian Party's stance: non government issue. They don't adopt the pro-life/choice labels. So are they inadvertently prochoice? hm.

libertarians in general: varies.. but I think most are prochoice

kylejack
10-29-2007, 09:09 AM
Are they human cells?

Is your definition of life being sentient and able to feel pain? If that's true then you argue with the classical scientific definition of life, and under your definition a percentage of the disabled would, I suppose, be dead.
So do you feel that surgery to remove cancerous material from a person's body is murder? How about a hair cut? How about liposuction? This is all human cells killed by the procedure.

Man from La Mancha
10-29-2007, 09:14 AM
So do you feel that surgery to remove cancerous material from a person's body is murder? How about a hair cut? How about liposuction? This is all human cells killed by the procedure. Those cells don't become a live baby.
http://blog.syracuse.com/family/2007/08/baby.jpg

kylejack
10-29-2007, 09:16 AM
Those cells don't become a live baby.
http://blog.syracuse.com/family/2007/08/baby.jpg
Sperm does, as do eggs. Is a condom genocide? Is a menstrual cycle murder?

JosephTheLibertarian
10-29-2007, 09:18 AM
how about spermicide? lol

Man from La Mancha
10-29-2007, 09:20 AM
Sperm does, as do eggs. Is a condom genocide? Is a menstrual cycle murder?
No there different, neither will become a baby till combined. A baby has a different dna than either of those.

.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 09:22 AM
No there different, neither will become a baby till combined. A baby has a different dna than either of those.

.

A baby has DNA combined between the two, so each is 1/2 of a potential baby.

jmarinara
10-29-2007, 09:32 AM
A baby has DNA combined between the two, so each is 1/2 of a potential baby.


Yes potential being the key word there. So no, using a condem or going through a menstrual cycle is not murder. Neither is a miscarriage, because it happens naturally without malice or intent, and in most cases, desire to kill.

As for having a hair cut or clipping your toenails, no that's not murder because, well you see, YOUR STILL ALIVE AFTER THOSE THINGS!!!! Good grief.

To compare killing every cell in a child a few days or weeks old, to removing/killing a minute amount cells in a haircut of a fully grown person is disingenuous.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 09:34 AM
Yes potential being the key word there. So no, using a condem or going through a menstrual cycle is not murder. Neither is a miscarriage, because it happens naturally without malice or intent, and in most cases, desire to kill.

As for having a hair cut or clipping your toenails, no that's not murder because, well you see, YOUR STILL ALIVE AFTER THOSE THINGS!!!! Good grief.

To compare killing every cell in a child a few days or weeks old, to removing/killing a minute amount cells in a haircut of a fully grown person is disingenuous.

To compare removing a minute amount of cells to killing a full-grown baby is equally disingenuous. This conversation is kind of pointless, because its so rare that someone changes their opinion on abortion.

RickSp
10-29-2007, 12:10 PM
A baby has DNA combined between the two, so each is 1/2 of a potential baby.


Potential being the operative word.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 12:23 PM
Potential being the operative word.
Right, and I consider a small collection of cells to be a potential human, not a human. What traditionally defines a human? A brain, a heart, a circulatory system, these sorts of things, none of which a zygote has.

cjhowe
10-29-2007, 01:28 PM
Here's another topic where being unapologetic on a viewpoint helps. Nobody really wants to stand by the morals of their convictions. Conception is one of the worst defining points in determining life, if for no other reason that one does not know when a child has been conceived. Has a fetus been conceived the morning after? This is the benefit of the morning after pill. You don't know if you're destroying a fetus or destroying a nothing.

Biblically, there are only two points that can claim that life begins. Seed and breath. Taking the position of breath would allow for all abortions including partial birth. Taking the position of seed would equate male masturbation as murder. Good luck with that.

Scientifically, you have eight points to argue when an individual life begins.

Metabolic - Egg and sperm are life
Genetic - fertilization
Embryological - gastrulation, no more potential for twins
Neurological - brain activity
Ecological - can survive on its own
Technological - can survive on its own with the aid of technology
Birth - birth
Self-Consciosness - allow for infanticide

Man from La Mancha
10-29-2007, 01:42 PM
A baby has DNA combined between the two, so each is 1/2 of a potential baby.
Absolutely no comparison. If that egg or sperm is put in a environment to grow like another womb or if possible an artificial womb they won't grow into a baby period. When a sperm and an egg is combined it is a completely different organism a future baby which ejected won't grow to human. Why can't people just prevent it ahead of time is that so hard to do or are people just stupid about how babies are made??

.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 01:50 PM
When a sperm and an egg is combined it is a completely different organism a future baby which ejected won't grow to human
.
A "future baby" is not a baby.

Man from La Mancha
10-29-2007, 02:17 PM
A "future baby" is not a baby. Unlike every other cellar structure in this universe IT WOULD BE.

.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 02:19 PM
Unlike every other cellar structure in this universe IT WOULD BE.

.
Right, but if it isn't currently a human baby, killing it is not murder of a human being.

Michael Varin
10-29-2007, 08:41 PM
Abortion is such a sticky issue. It tends to be controversial and divisive and the current discussion doesn't seem to be getting us closer to where we need to be. I just don't see it as a make or break issue.

Personally, I am anti-abortion (being pro-abortion is like being pro-war, but I'm sure they're out there), but I also don't think the gov't should be involved in this area of life, so I could be labeled pro-choice.

Having said that, I am totally comfortable with Roe v. Wade being overturned. This is not the domain of the federal (national?) gov't.

I do see where those who believe a legitimate action of gov't is to protect life are coming from. To them the fetus is an individual that has a right to life and therefore should be protected by gov't.

From there, the discussion usually proceeds to the when does life begin question.

Murray Rothbard addressed this issue in a way that is more productive.


The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being
has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

There are so many effective methods of birth control that we should be able to eliminate 95% of abortions.

jmarinara
10-29-2007, 11:04 PM
To compare removing a minute amount of cells to killing a full-grown baby is equally disingenuous. This conversation is kind of pointless, because its so rare that someone changes their opinion on abortion.

I guess I'm a rare case then, cause I used to be pro-choice. Funny things happen to your opinions when you realize what vile worm you are compared to holiness of God's law and how desperately you need a savior.

No my argument is not disingenuous, although I admit it may have been unclear. I was on my way to work. You asked if clipping hair was murder. I answered no because clipping your hair isn't harmful, much less fatal. On the other hand, no matter how small the baby is, an abortion kills every cell in a body and is fatal to that body. See the difference?

Now you say that there is no difference between a baby small in size and early in development, and a newborn. I ask you, what exactly, is the difference? Oh sure, perhaps one has a better chance of survival outside the womb, but are you really going to tell me that the baby small in size and early in development isn't alive? If it's not alive, how does it grow, how does it eat, why does it produce waste, why does it use energy? If it is not human, then at what point does it become not human and turn human? And if it is indeed alive and human, and clearly has done nothing to deserve death, why is it not murder when we end it's life?

jmarinara
10-29-2007, 11:14 PM
The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being
has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.


This just plain made me sick. To compare a baby to a parasite is so unbelievably immoral it just makes me sick. Babies are the only innocent party in the whole issue. Either the woman was irresponsible and got herself pregnant and didn't want to be, or she was raped by an evil man who needs to be locked up for a long time.

Either way the baby did nothing. It sure didn't choose to be thrust into that situation and it sure doesn't choose to be a parasite. They are helpless, and birth involves them living inside a person for a few months. That's just the way it is. They are decidedly innocent in the matter.

Also, to put a persons convenience above another persons life is so backwards and immoral that it begs a revolution simply to correct the matter. It's a symptom of the sad state the false intellectualism of post-modernism brings us.

May God forgive our wicked culture.

kylejack
10-29-2007, 11:38 PM
You changed your position when you found religion, so your position is based on your faith, not your faculty of reason. As such, no rational discussion is possible, because you will always defer back to your Ultimate Authority. Why is it so? Because God says so. I wouldn't deign to challenge such a powerful being.

jmarinara
10-31-2007, 06:28 AM
You changed your position when you found religion, so your position is based on your faith, not your faculty of reason. As such, no rational discussion is possible, because you will always defer back to your Ultimate Authority. Why is it so? Because God says so. I wouldn't deign to challenge such a powerful being.

And instead of engaging me in a rational discussion, you've decided to mock me instead. So be it I suppose, I can't force you to think.

I am however getting tired of people saying that just because someone is a religious person that it automatically indicates that they have no rational basis for their thoughts and simply believe everything they are told in a book or church because they are a mind numbed robot.

My position is that the only logical conclusion a person can reach, when studying the pre-born child objectively, is that the pre-born child is undeniably alive, undeniably human and therefore undeniably a person. Therefore he/she deserves the same protections and dignities of any person. If you care to think differently and would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to post a rational response. Otherwise, I don't need your mocking.

Zarxrax
10-31-2007, 07:47 AM
I once opposed abortion for religious reasons, as I'm sure most people who oppose it do. I have one comment for them though: If you believe abortion is a sin, then let the woman face judgment for it when she goes before God. Whether or not something is allowed by law is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a sin. There are many great sins out there, but we do not need the law to prevent us from committing them. A person must hold accountability for themselves, and do what is right, not because the law says so, but because it is so.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-31-2007, 07:56 AM
Why do you care about what strangers do with their fetuses?

jmdrake
10-31-2007, 11:27 AM
Um, tell that to a 14 year old who's scared and doesn't want her parents to know what's going on. Many young girls died that way.

This is just crazy. A 14 year old can't even get a life saving operation without parental consent. But we've somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that this same 14 year old can get an elective procedure without parental consent? And for all of the talk of the "risks" of "back alley" abortions, people don't want to talk about the risks of abortion in an approved facility. Every time someone goes under anesthesia there are risks. Why is it ok for a parent to block a child from getting a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs, but we think that parental involvement in an issue like abortion is a bad thing?

Regards,

John M. Drake

RoyalTenenbaum
11-02-2007, 02:04 PM
It's worth noting that the debate going on on this thread is exactly what Roe v Wade took away. It froze the debate based on the 1973-era understanding of nine men. Now, the states are not free to decide how they want to deal with the issue of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps the folks in state A would greatly limit access to abortion, but they would pour a lot of support into the institutions that help people avoid these pregnancies (because 99% of all abortions result from consentual sexual contact - less than 1% from rape), and into the institutions that could care for children whose parents could not bring them up. Instead, Roe encourages the atrophy of those insitutions and it is considered responsible to abort children that one seemingly cannot care for. (But, oddly, not considered irresponsible to engage in the conduct from which babies result)

Also, Nike's characterization of Roe's holding is flat out wrong. Roe said the states have almost no interest in protecting human life pre-viability, and a minimal interest post viability. I say minimal interest because although their holding sounds broad, right up until the day of birth, the state cannot interfere where the "health" of the mother is at stake, and health can mean anything.

As an aside, "viability" [the ability to live outside the womb on one's own] was an incredibly stupid mark to use because anyone who has children will tell you that even once a baby is born, it has no ability to live outside the womb on its own. It takes a great amount of care and sacrifice from others for children to live and flourish for a long time.

literatim
11-03-2007, 03:20 AM
This just plain made me sick. To compare a baby to a parasite is so unbelievably immoral it just makes me sick. Babies are the only innocent party in the whole issue. Either the woman was irresponsible and got herself pregnant and didn't want to be, or she was raped by an evil man who needs to be locked up for a long time.

Either way the baby did nothing. It sure didn't choose to be thrust into that situation and it sure doesn't choose to be a parasite. They are helpless, and birth involves them living inside a person for a few months. That's just the way it is. They are decidedly innocent in the matter.

Also, to put a persons convenience above another persons life is so backwards and immoral that it begs a revolution simply to correct the matter. It's a symptom of the sad state the false intellectualism of post-modernism brings us.

May God forgive our wicked culture.

^ What he said.


You changed your position when you found religion, so your position is based on your faith, not your faculty of reason. As such, no rational discussion is possible, because you will always defer back to your Ultimate Authority. Why is it so? Because God says so. I wouldn't deign to challenge such a powerful being.

Then do you believe that get your rights from the government?


I once opposed abortion for religious reasons, as I'm sure most people who oppose it do. I have one comment for them though: If you believe abortion is a sin, then let the woman face judgment for it when she goes before God. Whether or not something is allowed by law is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a sin. There are many great sins out there, but we do not need the law to prevent us from committing them. A person must hold accountability for themselves, and do what is right, not because the law says so, but because it is so.

Do we not need laws to punish a murderer?

Killing an unborn child is violating its right to life. The same exact right to life that you have.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-03-2007, 05:26 AM
the correct response is "we get our rights from our creator" but.. people end up thinking I'm some religious nut when I say that :p

TooConservative
11-03-2007, 08:10 AM
One of the better arguments you can muster is just how bad Roe is as constitutional law. It corrupts the Constitution and the role of the judiciary.

Even the biggest pro-abortion liberal legal scholars readily acknowledge how bad it is legally.

More than that, it has never been revisited as more medical information becomes available. Nor have any restrictions on abortion ever been allowed by the Court even though Roe makes it perfectly clear that restrictions are allowed and desirable.

iddo
11-03-2007, 01:58 PM
Here is Ron Paul on abortion:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#On_abortion

kry0nik
11-09-2007, 08:00 AM
My personal take on abortion is choice begins with conception. Once you have consented to have sex, you have made your choice to accept the potential consequences that come with it. The only way to fix the abortion problem (which 90% plus of us can agree is something we should be trying to eliminate the need for) is not to make a new law banning or holding up the current un-constitutional right to conveniently fix a lack of personal responsibility. Rather, children and adults alike need to be educated that "choice" begins with who you choose to have sex with. If you choose wisely or unwisely with partners and protection, you should be adult enough to accept the responsibility implied.

I'm not naive to think we should teach moral abstinence programs exclusively to children, nor do I think we should have the local indoctrination centers showing children how to put a condom on with a banana or dispense birth control like candy. Young people should be taught to stay away from sex with other people UNLESS they are ready to accept the consequences. Masturbate, get toys...whatever you need to do to explore yourself. Keep away from the opposite sex until/unless you are ready to be responsible for your genitalia, and accept the potential outcome of adult activity.

kylejack
11-09-2007, 08:01 AM
My personal take on abortion is choice begins with conception. Once you have consented to have sex, you have made your choice to accept the potential consequences that come with it.
How does your perspective change if one didn't make this choice, and sex was thrust upon one?

ladyliberty
11-09-2007, 08:08 AM
I have alot of really retarded democrat friends. They have been driving me insane with thier constant attacks on ron paul. The only point against him they really make is that he supports overturning Roe v Wade. It seems like they put Roe V Wade on a much higher level of importance then our own consitution. These people are driving me insane. Here is a blog post I recently made to try and explain the situation to them. Let me know if I am forgetting anything...

Abortion

It is starting to seem like everyone I know is obsessed with abortion.



I tell people about Ron Paul, and they come back with "No I cant support him because he wants to overturn Roe V Wade". I try to explain that it should be overturned because the federal government does not have power to issue a ruling like that. I try to explain that abortions would still be legal in pennsylvania even if Roe v Wade was overturned....people dont care. They automatically hate him because they heard he wants to overturn Roe v Wade.

I understand how some people are extremely zealous pro-lifers. This is thier religous belief and they think they are on a mission from god to stop abortions. Crazy? Yes....but it is still understandable. They think abortion is murder so they are trying to stop murder of the innocent. Not that crazy when you really think about it.

What I dont understand at all is how people become so passionatly pro-choice. These are people who have never studied birth, are not doctors, yet they are 100% convinced that making sure everyone in the world can have abortions is a top priority. It is like these people are planning to have 50 abortions in the future.

We live in a country where legislation like the "patriot" act is routinely passed, we are in a never ending occupation of iraq and about to goto war with Iran. Our president talks about World War 3 like it is unavoidable. We are being taxed by an illegal institution (The federal reserve) at much higher rates then we were prior to the American revolution. We have an extremely bloated budget, are trillions in debt, and the value of the dollar is continuosly falling. We have secret torture camps all around the world, and people can be indefinitly detained at these places without charges. Not to mention the insanely expensive "war on drugs". Abuses of civil liberties are completely out of control and getting worse by the day.

I tell people I know a man named Ron Paul who will solve all of these things And they say, "Oh he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, i cant vote for him". Ahhh! It makes me want to pull my hair out.

I am pro-choice. I dont think anyone knows "when life begins", so I am pro-choice. We dont have enough information to say it is murder. I certainly dont think it is murder in the first few months. Near the end of the pregnancy it gets much more complicated. The way our current laws are, a women could have an abortion a day before she is scheduled to deliver her baby and face no repercussions. If the next day, after she gave birth, she killed her baby, she would goto jail for life. That doesn't really make sence to me.

So supporting Roe v Wade is supporting that people far away, who believe abortion is murder, can still have abortions without leaving thier state. It makes no freaking sence to me how people get all fired up and passionate about supporting Roe v Wade.

So can someone give me some input about why they so strongly support Roe V Wade? And is this really enough to convince you not to vote for OB/GYN Ron Paul?

Democrats hate America and they hate women in particular!

Buy this video and have a movie and popcorn night at your house - this is for ADULTS only! http://www.monstrousregiment.com/

shadowhooch
11-09-2007, 08:28 AM
How about addressing the abortion issue with Democrats like this....

Ron Paul simply wants to restore the "Republic" aspect of the United States. He does not like one monotheic answer for a very difficult issue. That is why this very difficult issue needs to be resolved at the state level.

True, his personal beliefs are pro-life. But he does not want to force those beliefs on you by appointing a pro-choice or pro-life Federal judge. By having many solutions to a difficult problem, eventually the right one will come to the surface.

It is the same thing with criminal law and capital punishment. Each state has their own laws regarding capital punishment. What is the right answer? I don't know. But it is being sorted out many different ways. That is the beauty of having a Republic.