What's new
By:

Life At Conception

Tony said:
In my opinion, a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body and no one else has any right to try and force their own opinions and beliefs onto that woman because in the end, she's going to have to live with her decision for the rest of her life. Meanwhile, the people who criticize the choice she makes will forget about it eventually. This entire subject is asinine. Every woman should be able to choose. Religion should have NO part in laws involving the matter because everyone has their own religions and some have none. But everyone has their own opinions on the matter. So if you believe babies should never be aborted, then by all means, don't abort. But don't shove your own beliefs down other people throats.

Another thing, if a woman REALLY doesn't want to have a baby, she'll find a way not to and that could involve bodily harm or death. Having the option to have medical treatment is a hell of a lot safer than not having it.

edit: religion should have no part in laws AT ALL.
Click to expand...

I knew one person, a nurse in fact, who tried to do an abortion on herself. . . . probably in a severe state of depression. . . .. and died as a result. I think you have a point that the government using force or extreme measures to cut people's choice out will surely cause a lot of personal suffering, even death of the women affected. It's one thing to affirm the reality of "life" at conception, another to place a premium of that life above that of the mother. The value placed on that life by the parents has got to be in the equation. . . .and I wouldn't want any mother's life to be given a lesser value than the conceived child. Government is really bad at being the decision-maker in our personal lives. . . . .or the educator and seat of our morals.
 
Tony said:
That's not what I'm saying. Of course the father should have a say but I mean the groups and politicians who are trying to make it so women have no right to their own bodies.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Such as partial birth abortions.

But then since we are on that slope at what point do we stop? Are not politicians and groups doing the same thing with pot? heroin? meth?
 
One Brow said:
By the only scientifically viable definition of life, sperm, ovum, and cancer cells are alive (and unmistakably human).



So, if my kidneys fail and your blood type is compatible, it's OK for me to hook myself into your bloodstream and for you to hook yourself into mine? Or, do you reject for some reason not connected to dependence or independence?



Accidental miscarriages resulted in a fine. Accidental murder resulted in death, unless the killer managed to reach one of the cities of refuge. I don't consider paying a fine and being forced to flee for your life as "fairly equal judgement".
Click to expand...

I think you might be precisely right about the ancient Law of Moses point. I was going to look to it up. . . . .

at least if it was accidental there was the "city of refuge" place to go to to be safe from retribution on the "life for life" rule, but you still had to make your case. But my point was that causing an accidental miscarriage did not even require you to flee to the city of refuge.
 
Hartsock said:
Better a baby be aborted ( in the first trimester ideally) than be born to a parent who doesn't want it and won't love it, or to be born and thrown into the hell that is foster care. Don't try and tell me that there are plenty of adoptive parents out there, there aren't. It's not your life so shut the **** up and stay out of it. I also find it odd that the republicans really want smaller government, but they really really want to govern the lives of everyone that doesn't share the same values and ideals as them. Pretty hypocritical IMO.

Also anytime anyone uses the bible as a basis for an argument I automatically assume that argument is baseless.
Click to expand...

the plight of an unwanted child, including foster hell, gets a strong emotional wave of sympathy with me. But so does the baby who might want to live. . . . well, maybe not "want" but still in the process of trying to live.

and if partisanship is at the root of our thinking, we're all on shaky ground. How about democrats who want to regulate the fast food services in "their" town? not on the food safety standard of cleanliness and handling, but on nutrition.. .. no big soft drinks and no fries. . . . and yeah, under socialized medicine we all have a financial stake in what others eat, and when they want a child, or need a medical procedure of any kind that is the result of a personal choice.

for the rest of it, yah. . . . . well, we all have our ideas about other people's opinions being baseless, and our own well-founded/
 
Gameface said:
I have an honest question. It's not really pro or anti abortion.

If the choice completely belongs to the pregnant woman how is it justified that the biological father is completely at her mercy?

If she decides to have and keep the child when the father doesn't want the child then he is obligated to pay child support.

If she decides to abort the child when the father wants the child then he simply doesn't get to have his child born.

So is this fair?

A woman can opt-out of motherhood if she wants to. A man cannot opt-out of fatherhood (financially) if the woman doesn't want him to.

Why can't a man "abort" his part in a pregnancy? His body is now being controlled by this pregnancy in the sense that he will have to spend his time and effort providing financial support for a child he didn't want...for 18 years. Have no doubt, his body, his existence is being affected by a pregnancy he had no choice to end or continue or anything. He's trapped and completely at the mercy of the mother's will.
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gameface again.
Click to expand...

Two things I like about this comment. Totally respectful of others' views, and about as valid a consideration as considerations can be.
 
what about box elder bugs? can I still squish them?

oh wait. They're life, but they're not HUMAN life.


never mind
 
fallenchicken said:
I actually think this is a complicated question, no matter your religion or spiritual believes. I'm an atheist who certainly supports birth-control--I think a person should only have two kids--but the idea of abortion still makes me a bit queasy. I'm not sure there is a right answer. In my mind you can't force a woman to carry a baby. With how expensive it is to raise a kid these days--when in the past it was an economic asset--it's just not a possibility for some people. The only thing you can do is not put yourself, or your woman, in this moral quagmire and make sure you don't cause any unplanned pregnancies.

And that's why you should always do it standing up; they can't get pregnant that way.
Click to expand...

well, I have to say it's my idea of decency to respect opinions that may differ from mine. I sorta need to do that because I do change my own opinions, and I used to like myself when I thought something else. . . . lol

I started out feeling pretty sympathetic with this, until the last sentence. It would be a great one-liner as comic relief. . . . but it definitely is not an effective way to prevent pregnancy. I don't know how to teach my way to teenagers or anyone else, but I think sex is an option that carries an obligation for consequences, and it is really a good thing not to do if you don't want the consequences. . . .
 
moevillini said:
what about box elder bugs? can I still squish them?

oh wait. They're life, but they're not HUMAN life.


never mind
Click to expand...

Moe, you know I really do like to have fun, and you are "fun". Oh wait. . . . that doesn't fit with my last little moral sermonette, and sounds horrid, doesn't it.

I used to squish thousands of box elder bugs. . . . until the whole mass of my campaign just became somehow revolting to me. . . . and so I just stopped doing it. I still have the box elder bug habitat, but my wife does those bug sprays and insect bombs, and it just hasn't been as much of a plague as it once was. . . .

I confess to some soft areas in my brain/emotions where logic is just lost in the mush, and while I think it's a good point that insects are "life" I really just can't care too much about mosquitos and grasshoppers either, and I love those beautiful swallows that build nests under the eaves of my house. And I can just love my cows, and give them names and everything, and still take them to the butcher for hamburger when I think they might die in the winter snow if I don't.
 
Stoked said:
I agree to a point. Such as partial birth abortions.

But then since we are on that slope at what point do we stop? Are not politicians and groups doing the same thing with pot? heroin? meth?
Click to expand...

Come on... There's a difference between abortions and government stopping people from putting deadly chemicals into their bodies. Abortion isn't addictive and it won't slowly rot and kill you.

On a side note though, I think marijuana should be legalized and regulated. It would stop the majority of drug trafficking between the US and Mexico, it would keep people safe from smoking chemical additives that people put in the weed they grow to make it addictive, and it would allow the DEA to focus on larger drug problems. The fact that it's still illegal is a tad ludicrous to me.
 
Stoked said:
I also like how it is the mothers fault but not the fathers.
Click to expand...

I assume he is being bitchy just for the sake of being bitchy .... I take full responsibility for my mistake. As should the women, everyone involved is equally responsible.
 
Tony said:
Come on... There's a difference between abortions and government stopping people from putting deadly chemicals into their bodies. Abortion isn't addictive and it won't slowly rot and kill you.

On a side note though, I think marijuana should be legalized and regulated. It would stop the majority of drug trafficking between the US and Mexico, it would keep people safe from smoking chemical additives that people put in the weed they grow to make it addictive, and it would allow the DEA to focus on larger drug problems. The fact that it's still illegal is a tad ludicrous to me.
Click to expand...

No, I agree. I was just saying that if we only look at it as people controlling, or attempting to control, others bodies then where does that slope end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top