APP - Senator Kennedy became one of my heroes!

Jarod said:
If you know the result of an act WILL be death... it does not matter what your purpose was. That does not change the amount of complicity in the deaths.

I agree with your plan and would support it over the current law. But based on your logic by supporting your proposal, we would both be complicit in the deaths of these lives.
Click to expand...
If you agree with what I propose then work towards that rather than the continued legality of killing on purpose that which we can work to save.
 
Jarod said:
IN fact that goes directly back to my point earlier that I do not belive that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions. I am making a very simular argument. Also, my intent in supporting legal abortion is not to promote abortion but to protect the right to FREEDOM!
Click to expand...
There is no freedom to kill. Such a "freedom" is abhorrent. Supporting the activity because you think it will make it "less" is ridiculous twisting.
 
Damocles said:
There is no freedom to kill. Such a "freedom" is abhorrent. Supporting the activity because you think it will make it "less" is ridiculous twisting.
Click to expand...

Its not the freedom to kill I am supporting, its the freedom to do with your own body what you choose. I agree that freedom has to be ballanced with the rights of the fetus, and at some point the rights of the fetus are greater than the right to freedom. We can argue where those rights interscet all day.
 
Jarod said:
Its not the freedom to kill I am supporting, its the freedom to do with your own body what you choose. I agree that freedom has to be ballanced with the rights of the fetus, and at some point the rights of the fetus are greater than the right to freedom. We can argue where those rights interscet all day.
Click to expand...
Again. Then support change, not the status quo. The "freedom" to do with your own body what you want does not trump the right to life.

What I propose recognizes both of these rights, what you propose continues to recognize only one of them.
 
Damocles said:
If you agree with what I propose then work towards that rather than the continued legality of killing on purpose that which we can work to save.
Click to expand...

I currently do not work toward either. Currently I work toward feeding my family.

I have fun discussing these things here... I do not consider that workign toward anything.
 
Damocles said:
Again. Then support change, not the status quo. The "freedom" to do with your own body what you want does not trump the right to life.

What I propose recognizes both of these rights, what you propose continues to recognize only one of them.
Click to expand...

False, I do not support abortion after the first trimester unless the life or health of the woman is in signifigant danger.
 
Damocles said:
And yet you do not work to make abortions after the first trimester illegal?
Click to expand...

No, but if it came to a vote, Id support that.

Do you work to make it a requirement that aborted fetuses be given all possable medical attention to try to save them?
 
Jarod said:
IN fact that goes directly back to my point earlier that I do not belive that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions. I am making a very simular argument. Also, my intent in supporting legal abortion is not to promote abortion but to protect the right to FREEDOM!
Click to expand...
What about the FREEDOM of the unborn?
 
Jarod said:
Then by your logic, if you are successfull at what you are working toward, you will be complicit in the deaths of innocent unborn human life.
Click to expand...
Again, incorrect. If I am successful I am complicit in changing the system to give them a chance, however minuscule rather than certain death, and furthering women's rights hugely when it becomes consistently possible.
 
Damocles said:
Again, incorrect. If I am successful I am complicit in changing the system to give them a chance, however minuscule rather than certain death, and furthering women's rights hugely when it becomes consistently possible.
Click to expand...

No, according to your logic, in order to not be complicit you would work toward banning all abortion until technology got to a place where it would be reasonably likely that the patient would survive. Otherwise you are supporting a law that will almost certantly result in death of the "youngest of human life"!

By supporting such a law you are complicit in the death of that life.
 
Jarod said:
No, according to your logic, in order to not be complicit you would work toward banning all abortion until technology got to a place where it would be reasonably likely that the patient would survive. Otherwise you are supporting a law that will almost certantly result in death of the "youngest of human life"!

By supporting such a law you are complicit in the death of that life.
Click to expand...
No, that is only in your "logic", as I pointed out earlier. Attempting to save what would otherwise be considered trash if the system you promote continues is not complicity in the death, it is directly working for a positive change. Now if I advocated this change from a system where no abortions were happening then I'd be promoting more "death"...
 
Jarod said:
Others do not belive it is a life.

Still others belive they have to ballance the rights of the individual embryo with the rights of the pregnant woman and draw a line somewhere. The more developed the embryo is, the more important its rights are!
Click to expand...

if it wasn't a life.... then the womans body would automatically eject it... there would be no need for an abortion.
 
Damocles said:
No, that is only in your "logic", as I pointed out earlier. Attempting to save what would otherwise be considered trash if the system you promote continues is not complicity in the death, it is directly working for a positive change. Now if I advocated this change from a system where no abortions were happening then I'd be promoting more "death"...
Click to expand...

False, based on the plan you are promoting... actions you are "promoting" will end "lives". Sure at some time in the future lives may be saved, but that is the same as the argument I made. I belive that by keeping abortion legal and open ultimatly lives will be saved because less abortions will occure.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
False, based on the plan you are promoting... actions you are "promoting" will end "lives". Sure at some time in the future lives may be saved, but that is the same as the argument I made. I belive that by keeping abortion legal and open ultimatly lives will be saved because less abortions will occure.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Based on the change that I am advocating actions I promote will give a remote chance of life to what otherwise is considered refuse and worthy only of the label of "waste," while the action you advocate (change nothing) will continue the status quo where life is considered trash. Human trash is something we need to avoid, not promote.
 
Is it entertaining to you that two guys are debating the moral/legal implications of abortion? (Are they both guys?)

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I haven't seen a single offer for either to take in a teenaged, homeless pregnant child and adopt her crack-addicted baby.

I don't know the political affiliations of either of these guys, and don't know which is which, quite frankly.

But this is ridiculous. It is the woman's choice. If the father is the husband, then it has to be a consensus between the two.

I believe in quality, not quantity, of life.


christiefan915 said:
If they're not born, they're not free.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top