IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

[IHateGovernment]

No, the "logical step" involved is to simply admit that one does not have access to absolute truth. To admit that one might, just possibly, be wrong. To admit that other people are not bound by one's personal convictions on all things.

These are the people who oppose abortion but are pro-choice. They're the ones who don't feel ordained by God to impose their will upon others.

No there isn't any big difference. Its all a matter of degree. The only person who doesn't believe in imposing their will on others is a full on Anarchist. You set a time in which it is unlawful to kill a human being and so do they. It is a difference in degree.

You may see that your view is diametrically opposed to them but it isn't you are just standing in a different spot on the spectrum.

To be truly humble and not imposing of will one would have to not make a stand on anything except that which they did on a personal level. I don't know anybody who does that.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No, the "logical step" involved is to simply admit that one does not have access to absolute truth. To admit that one might, just possibly, be wrong. To admit that other people are not bound by one's personal convictions on all things.

These are the people who oppose abortion but are pro-choice. They're the ones who don't feel ordained by God to impose their will upon others.

No there isn't any big difference. Its all a matter of degree. The only person who doesn't believe in imposing their will on others is a full on Anarchist. You set a time in which it is unlawful to kill a human being and so do they. It is a difference in degree.

You may see that your view is diametrically opposed to them but it isn't you are just standing in a different spot on the spectrum.

To be truly humble and not imposing of will one would have to not make a stand on anything except that which they did on a personal level. I don't know anybody who does that.

I never claimed otherwise. It's just where you draw the line. The dogmatic and inflexible anti-abortionists simply draw it way far over to the paternalistic/authoritarian side on this particular issue.

This lot want to force women to bear children they do not wish to bear. That is what we do to dairy cattle. Many of us find the very idea heinous in the extreme. Oh, they dress it up by saying that it's the woman's own fault and blah, blah, blah. Horsepuckey.

We're not just talking about giving a fetus the benefit of the doubt here. We're talking about an astoundingly gross and degrading intrusion on the free will of all women. That is why the issue remains so volatile: each side is equally disgusted with the other's position.

I submit, as I always have, that when the issue is this murky and this emotional, the ONLY rational course is to leave it a matter of personal conscience and not intrude the power of the state.

Yes, compromise is possible: late term abortion is a very different issue from early term abortion. Most abortion rights activists would be quite willing to stop fighting late term abortion restrictions if such didn't inevitably include outright bans or severe restrictions on all abortions. This does not mean that all would be willing, merely that most would.

 

[IHateGovernment]

This lot want to force women to bear children they do not wish to bear. That is what we do to dairy cattle. Many of us find the very idea heinous in the extreme. Oh, they dress it up by saying that it's the woman's own fault and blah, blah, blah. Horsepuckey.

I am aware of that argument and give it considerable weight. I believe the solutions I have outlined in the past address that adequately in my opinion.

Some of a conservative bent see pregnancy as a punishment for bad behavior this is the whole crowd that doesn't like the HPV vaccine. They are in the minority. Probably the biggest group are those who oppose it on religious grounds. Then there are those like me who oppose it on grounds of human rights.

Theres a lot of variance in this cause and I think it wrong of you to demonize your opposition as paternalistic or authoritarian.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

This lot want to force women to bear children they do not wish to bear. That is what we do to dairy cattle. Many of us find the very idea heinous in the extreme. Oh, they dress it up by saying that it's the woman's own fault and blah, blah, blah. Horsepuckey.

I am aware of that argument and give it considerable weight. I believe the solutions I have outlined in the past address that adequately in my opinion.

Some of a conservative bent see pregnancy as a punishment for bad behavior this is the whole crowd that doesn't like the HPV vaccine. They are in the minority. Probably the biggest group are those who oppose it on religious grounds. Then there are those like me who oppose it on grounds of human rights.

Theres a lot of variance in this cause and I think it wrong of you to demonize your opposition as paternalistic or authoritarian.

IH8, the very act that the opposition advocates is paternalistic and authoritarian. The position itself is paternalistic, whether the people who adopt it feel that way or no. The opposition wishes to dictate, to all women, under all circumstances, that if they become pregnant they must bear a child to term. That position is so didactic and, to me, ugly that I can't even think about it without getting angry.

As I'm at pains to point out often, I really don't care about good intentions or motives very much. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, my grandmother used to say, and it's something I believe in wholeheartedly . . . though not literally, of course. I can't know the emotional state of those who believe in such restrictions and so I don't concern myself with it. My judgment is solely about what they believe not why they might come to that belief.

 

[Damocles]

<*sigh*>

No, the "logical step" involved is to simply admit that one does not have access to absolute truth. To admit that one might, just possibly, be wrong. To admit that other people are not bound by one's personal convictions on all things.

These are the people who oppose abortion but are pro-choice. They're the ones who don't feel ordained by God to impose their will upon others.

If we all admit that we might be wrong, then which side should we err on, the one that ends a life when done properly, or the one that may be saving a human life?

I have already demonstrated that we could adopt a policy that both recognizes that it is a human life, and allows for the woman to choose whether or not to carry the life within her.

 

[Jarod]

If we all admit that we might be wrong, then which side should we err on, the one that ends a life when done properly, or the one that may be saving a human life?

I have already demonstrated that we could adopt a policy that both recognizes that it is a human life, and allows for the woman to choose whether or not to carry the life within her.

I belive your plan will likely save lives. I dont belive making abortion illegal will save a single life. If we all admit we might be wrong, the government should always err on the side of LESS regulation.

 

[Damocles]

I belive your plan will likely save lives. I dont belive making abortion illegal will save a single life. If we all admit we might be wrong, the government should always err on the side of LESS regulation.

Not if there is a victim. That is preposterous. To deny one rights because we just "don't know" if they might be human? "Full Rights" aren't even a topic here, they are treated as flotsam.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, the "logical step" involved is to simply admit that one does not have access to absolute truth.

Yeah, that makes logical sense to me, let's just admit that none of us know a sperm and egg converge to conceive human life. Let's just pretend that isn't something we are aware of, because, after all, we don't really "know" anything in the grand scheme of things, knowledge is never absolute, and we must keep striving for the answers to the meaning of life...blah blah hooey blah!

To admit that one might, just possibly, be wrong.

The science and biology of when human life begins, is not in doubt. Those who support science and biology, therefore, are not "wrong" in what they are saying. Those who deny science are wrong, those who ignore science are wrong, but the ones who believe a fetus is a human life, a human being, are NOT wrong. It is impossible to be wrong, science supports the facts presented.

To admit that other people are not bound by one's personal convictions on all things.

Oh, I fully understand people are not bound by one's personal convictions on all things... look at Jeffrey Dahmer!

These are the people who oppose abortion but are pro-choice.

You are either unethical monsters, idiots and/or hypocrites.

They're the ones who don't feel ordained by God to impose their will upon others.

This is not about God's Will, or forcing it upon you. I think we have had the philosophical debate over where Morality comes from, and the non-religious crowd insisted that one need not be religious to have morals. So, this is not about "religion" at all, unless you would like to now concede, that non-religious people are incapable of morality. Is that how we are to take this statement?

There are three kinds of people who are pro-choice...
1) Those who deny a fetus is human at all.
2) Those who understand it is human, and want to kill it anyway.
3) Those who don't understand what it is, but are okay with someone else killing it.

Now, I understand how some of you feel important and significant because you are standing up for the woman's right to choose, and this makes you noble and brave men, courageous in your protection of liberty and freedom! I get that! I wish this were a case where I could join with you and stand up for women's rights, but it's just not. Women don't have the right to take a shotgun down to the garage and shoot her mechanic! It doesn't matter what her reasoning is, it doesn't matter what you perceive her "right" to be, she simply doesn't have such a right. The same is true with abortion, she made the choice to have sex, she became pregnant through her choice already. I can't do anything about that, if I could make men have babies, all would be fair, but that is just the consequences of being a woman, and they should have learned this at about age 12 or so. Men should share some of the responsibility and burden of the pregnancy, and if you think of some way to make that happen, I am all for it! But this is still not an excuse to allow women to murder other human beings.

There are some women who have had so many abortions, they have become completely desensitized to what they are doing, they have detached themselves from the reality of the truth, and they may never realize what they have done. But for the most part, women who undergo an abortion, remember it for the rest of their lives. It effects them emotionally, in the most negative of ways you can imagine. Much the same is true with young soldiers in combat, when they kill another person for the first time. There is something that tears at our consciousness when we as humans take the life of another human.

Those of you who really don't care, or don't "know" anything for certain, and you think you are "standing up for women" by being pro-choice, you are fools. You are doing more to scar and damage women emotionally for decades to come. Until reasonable and rational people come to the table and settle this issue, it will remain a detriment to women everywhere.

They're the ones who don't feel ordained by God to impose their will upon others.

I'm sorry, but I have to repost this. For the record, I fully support a ballot initiative on abortion, where it can be settled by the people once and for all. I will live with whatever the people say as a whole, anytime you are ready to get that initiative started. I think we can agree, this is not imposing anything on you whatsoever. On the other hand, you wish to elect liberals who will appoint liberal judges who will continue to rule in favor of the abortion practices most people don't want. Who is imposing their will again?

 

[Cancel7]

IH8, the very act that the opposition advocates is paternalistic and authoritarian. The position itself is paternalistic, whether the people who adopt it feel that way or no. The opposition wishes to dictate, to all women, under all circumstances, that if they become pregnant they must bear a child to term. That position is so didactic and, to me, ugly that I can't even think about it without getting angry.

As I'm at pains to point out often, I really don't care about good intentions or motives very much. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, my grandmother used to say, and it's something I believe in wholeheartedly . . . though not literally, of course. I can't know the emotional state of those who believe in such restrictions and so I don't concern myself with it. My judgment is solely about what they believe not why they might come to that belief.

I love this post Ornot.

Especially the part about good intentions.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The opposition wishes to dictate, to all women, under all circumstances, that if they become pregnant they must bear a child to term.

I can't speak for "all" the opposition, I don't think anyone can, but I certainly speak for many when I say, I wish to protect the rights of all humans, and the right to life should be of paramount importance over choice. I can be rational about limits and restrictions on abortions, we can establish boundaries and exceptions, but to allow the continued practice of abortion on demand, is unacceptable.

And AGAIN, I don't wish to "dictate" anything, I wish to have the American people cast their ballot on the issue and I will live with their decision. That is about as fair as it gets, isn't it? Meanwhile, you are busy supporting the abortion lobby and liberals who will appoint liberal judges to stand in the way of any legislation restricting abortion in any way. Who is dictating?

 

[IHateGovernment]

The position itself is paternalistic, whether the people who adopt it feel that way or no. The opposition wishes to dictate, to all women, under all circumstances, that if they become pregnant they must bear a child to term. That position is so didactic and, to me, ugly that I can't even think about it without getting angry.


Ornot apparently you have not listened to what Damo and I hae been saying regarding this very issue over the past couple years. I don't demand that anyone do that. Perhaps you have said you haven't heard anything new regarding this position for the past 25 years because when anyone vocally opposed your view they morph into an authoritarian monster grunting and snarling.

It doesn't matter I know one thing is certain. I don't need to convince any of you. The future will when advancement in bio technology will turn our materially based ethics upside down. None of any of the arguments will be relevant anymore but it will allow us to more clearly see the merits and flaws of the arguments of the past just as we do with other issues that seemed unsolvable in our past.

 

[Jarod]

Not if there is a victim. That is preposterous. To deny one rights because we just "don't know" if they might be human? "Full Rights" aren't even a topic here, they are treated as flotsam.

But if there is no indication that government action will help the victim... dont you think the government sould then stay out of it.

First, do no harm.

 

[IHateGovernment]

If abortion was illegal many would abide by the law.

Have you ever wondered why so many adopted children are South Korean?

In South Korea abortion is illegal.

 

[Damocles]

But if there is no indication that government action will help the victim... dont you think the government sould then stay out of it.

First, do no harm.

Living is preferrable to dying, government action would help the victim. The only people that think there is no indication are those who attempt to convince others that it isn't a human life.

 

[Jarod]

Living is preferrable to dying, government action would help the victim. The only people that think there is no indication are those who attempt to convince others that it isn't a human life.

I dont belive banning abortion would prevent abortion. Much like banning drugs does not prohibit people from doing drugs.

 

[Damocles]

I dont belive banning abortion would prevent abortion. Much like banning drugs does not prohibit people from doing drugs.

And I never suggested that it be banned. You are going around in circles because you do not address what is directly before you. There is another life that there, it is a human life. In all other cases we err on the side of life but this one.

Say, Terry Schiavo. Had she not instructed her husband to request an end, she would still be alive today because we err on the side of life.

The idea that victim in this case would not benefit from an attempt to keep it alive is preposterous.

 

[Care4all]

I like the idea of being able to do as you and damo suggest, SOMEWHERE down the road, and to be given as an option....

but, how do you see it working....?

Our country is broke, they don't even want to give welfare to mothers that chose not to abort...

Can you honestly see our government paying for the incubation of a fetus until viable?

What happens to all of these children? Can you see our adoption regulations become easier in this country ? Will there be enough adoption agencies and foster homes to take care of these children if they are not adopted? will our tax dollars pay for this also?

Will our government pay the healthcare costs of these children until they are 18? Will our gvt feed them if they are not adopted?

Will the government pay for the woman's hospital care until the child is viable and able to be extracted from her?

Will the government pay for the extraction? Will the government pay for the mother's mental health problems that will most certainly occur in many of the women that have had this procedure?

There are way too many questions that are unanswered and if answered with any kind of logical thought....this procedure seems unrealistic, even 20 years from now.... and this is why I am not using this procedure as the ANSWER to all....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Can you honestly see our government paying for the incubation of a fetus until viable?

What happens to all of these children? Can you see our adoption regulations become easier in this country ? Will there be enough adoption agencies and foster homes to take care of these children if they are not adopted? will our tax dollars pay for this also?

Will our government pay the healthcare costs of these children until they are 18? Will our gvt feed them if they are not adopted?

Will the government pay for the woman's hospital care until the child is viable and able to be extracted from her?

Will the government pay for the extraction? Will the government pay for the mother's mental health problems that will most certainly occur in many of the women that have had this procedure?

So, for you, it's all about money?

 

[Care4all]

So, for you, it's all about money?

nope....not at all....

just asking Damo and Ihg to answer some questions about their plan and whether they TRUELY and HONESTLY believe that our country would spend the money to do those things that would need to be done in order for this to REALLY be a viable sollution to the issue at hand.....

I do not believe that our country would do this to save a life....

They won't even do it now, for the women that can't bear aborting their own child and choose to not abort.....

the republicans would get rid of all welfare for these out of wedlock mothers if it were up to them and it appears that they would rather spend it killing people in unnecessary wars.

our country IS BROKE....will they choose these baby's over medication for the already living and born Senior citizens in order to fund it, if the funds ARE NOT THERE?

How will this be paid for?

These are perfectly legitimate questions that need answers before someone can say that "this is the answer to all" somewhere down the road.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

and whether they TRUELY and HONESTLY believe that our country would spend the money to do those things that would need to be done in order for this to REALLY be a viable sollution to the issue at hand.....

I do not believe that our country would do this to save a life....

Yeah, you are right, we are better off just letting people continue to kill the unwanted. That's the easiest solution for all, I agree. After all, who wants to give up any of their precious tax dollars to save an unwanted life? There are so many more important things we could do with the money, like paying for healthcare for people who don't work.

For the record, Damo's solution, although not medically possible at this time, would pay for itself from those who want desperately to adopt children. Supply and Demand is a wonderful thing. The problem is, aside from it not being possible, is he and others like him, will allow the abortion lobby to add all sorts of caveats to the legislation, and it will never function as it was intended. No abortion rights advocate is ever going to let us touch their precious 'woman's right to choose', and people like Damo will have to eventually come to this realization before any meaningful reform happens.

But I am kinda leaning toward your view... I can come here and preach to people and tell them what a big Christian I am, and that I dislike abortion, but it's better than us having to pay for the little bastards, so I'm okay with killing them to save us some moolah!