Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another. I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice. Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons. First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society. In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value. A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries. A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother. Who are we to determine which life is more valuable? What do we use to make that determination? Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc? If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble. It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable. After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth. 108389[/snapback] Exactly. And I think another compelling argument is that the Nazis and oviet Communists used abortion for eugenic purposes. The potential for social engineering is far too great to allow such a barbaric thing to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 What about the life of someone who has wrongly been given the death penalty, and is later exonerated, or even worse, found to be innocent after execution? For me it is too much to have that risk on my hands. There are too many problems with our legal system, namely that it can be had with the best lawyers money can buy while a person of lesser means gets the public defender who falls asleep during trials. 107477[/snapback] Our system of appeals is designed to prevent that from happening. To my knowledge, no one has been executed in this country since the DP was reinstated that was later proven to be innocent. If I'm wrong on that, I'd like to see the case. Also, the fact that an OJ can get away with it is not a sufficent reason to scrap the whole DP system. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't make Ted Bundy or Tim McVeigh any less guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 On social programs: I don't think too many people have a problem with helping their fellow man (hence the reason we give so much money to charity). We just understand that giving heinous amounts of money to a faceless bureaucratic organization to redistribute as THEY see fit, taking a cut for themselves at each level. 107785[/snapback] Bingo. I am anxiously awaiting Debbie's rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 Just a couple of comments. I am pro-life and I do not believe abortion is right in any circumstance, so that is where I am coming from. One of the arguments that has come up several times is the fear of future consequences if abortion is made legal. In other words, what impact will the 1 million plus aborted babies have on the nation if they are all allowed to live. Someone said it would be worse to allow a child to be born into poverty and to parents that did not want her than to be killed in the womb. Someone else said once abortion is legal it will make it more dangerous for women since they will have to risk getting an "underground" abortion. Another said the problem of poor, single mothers would only get worse. The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another. I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice. Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons. First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society. In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value. A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries. A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother. Who are we to determine which life is more valuable? What do we use to make that determination? Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc? If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble. It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable. After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth. I fully realize there are issues to deal with if abortion is to be made illegal. I don't believe, as someone mentioned, that pro-life advocates only care about the nine month period during a pregnancy and don't pay attention to pre-natal care and after birth care. You can have your opinion, but that is certainly not the case with the people and organizations I am familiar with. The reality is that things would have to be improved, but just because current social programs may not be ready, does not mean we should continue to allow abortion. To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others. Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS. Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion. I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only. If you don't think so, then look at reality. Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished. A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers. 108389[/snapback] Good post. Just because a lot of people have sex before marriage doesn't make it right. Should we give up on punishing killers because no matter what some people are going to become murderers? The worst argument in the world is "Come on, everyone has sex before marriage so we can't prevent unwanted pregnancies." because not everyone has sex before marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Exactly. And I think another compelling argument is that the Nazis and oviet Communists used abortion for eugenic purposes. The potential for social engineering is far too great to allow such a barbaric thing to continue. 108428[/snapback] So then, it's safe to assume that, if you were able to, you would ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 So then, it's safe to assume that, if you were able to, you would ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance? 108493[/snapback] Not at all. In cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother, abortion is not wrong. WILLFUL abortion is where I have a problem. People who determine a baby just won't be convenient, or they can't afford it, or they just don't WANT it. That's wrong, murderously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Our system of appeals is designed to prevent that from happening. To my knowledge, no one has been executed in this country since the DP was reinstated that was later proven to be innocent. If I'm wrong on that, I'd like to see the case. Also, the fact that an OJ can get away with it is not a sufficent reason to scrap the whole DP system. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't make Ted Bundy or Tim McVeigh any less guilty. 108451[/snapback] There have been cases. The gov of Illinois (and IIRC he was, and still is, a pro-death-penalty Republican) stayed all executions pending review b/c of this. Link "How do you prevent another Anthony Porter -- another innocent man or woman from paying the ultimate penalty for a crime he or she did not commit?" Governor Ryan said referring to the former inmate whose execution was stayed by the Illinois Supreme Court after new evidence emerged clearing him of the capital offense. "Today, I cannot answer that question." And if you think that these are the only ones, maybe you just don't want to accept what has been done in the name of "the people." The quasi-judicial hangings from the magnolia trees of the South weren't all that long ago, relatively. If you think the justice system is fine and dandy, just hope that you never get railroaded. It does happen, even now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyLee Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Just a couple of comments. To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others. Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS. Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion. I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only. If you don't think so, then look at reality. Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished. A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers. 108389[/snapback] I don't support sexual promiscuity. But tell me something, how many different sexual partners do you think a person must have to be called sexually promiscuous? Say a thirty-two year old woman or man who is getting married for the first time? How many sexual relationships or just sexual relations must said woman/man be involved in prior to marriage, before you would deem him/her promiscuous? I'm sure my idea and your idea of promiscuity differ. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes as sexual promiscuity. I didn't say that my 'solution' "was having sex to test out a potential spouse"! I said I don't recommend "saving oneself" until marriage. I just think its a good idea to know if you're sexually compatible before you spend the rest of your life with an inadequate or lousy lover and wind up in divorce court anyway. Couples who aren't happy in the bedroom usually wind up looking for satisfaction elsewhere which helps contribute to this abortion problem all over again. So, no, I don't think saving oneself for marriage is the answer either. That just creates a whole 'nother set of potential problems. Abstinence IS a valid solution to avoid abortion, I agree. BUT, I don't believe it is realistic or even commonplace. And what reality are you referring to? As for what history shows, I see a whole lotta cheatin' and runnin' around and children born out of wedlock in our history! Wasn't it George Washington who fathered children with one of his slaves? As for AIDS, you will still have homosexuals, needle sharing etc. It's unrealistic and pure fantasy to think that an entire generation would ever practice abstinence. It's just not gonna happen. Let me just say this, I am pro-choice, to a point. I am against abortion as a method of birth control. But there are instances where abortion should be an option. No government should have the right to tell a person what they can and can't do with their own body. In my opinion, that grouping of cells at conception is not a human, if it looks like a group of cells, it is a group of cells. If it ain't got a beating heart, it ain't winking at me and it ain't wiggling any fingers or toes at me, then it ain't human....yet. When it begins to take on those characteristics, that's where I draw the line. At that point, barring extenuating circumstances, I'm against it. Up until that point, there should be an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Bingo. I am anxiously awaiting Debbie's rebuttal. 108465[/snapback] Just tell me how you would administer it. Through a church? As long as the institution or bureau or entity is run by human beings - and in particular men - there's bound to be inefficiency. So because there is no perfect way to ensure ALL the money reaches ALL the children, we should just give up? "Suffer the little children". Doesn't seem Christian to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm pro-choice for 1 main reason: I'm old enough to remember when women were dying because they couldn't find safe abortions and they were going to get them no matter what. It was impossible to stop women from getting abortions, the question was basically: Should they risk their own death based on their socio-economic status? It was common practice for those (or their daughters) who could afford it to leave the country and get a safe abortion abroad. For the women in the USA who couldn't afford it it was a period of desperation, followed by a backalley illegal and dangerous abortion. Since the poorer were the ones dying, it made sense at the time abortion became legal to save the lives of the living, not the potential living. If making abortion illegal would have stopped all abortions, which in the "pro-life" mindset (or should I say -let the mother die mindset) is the goal, the case for outlawing it would have made a lot more sense. The reality of dead daughters, mothers, wives etc made the choice to make it legal much more supportable than to continue the practice of only the rich getting safe abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 We'll stop abortions right about the time we end terrorism and drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 We'll stop abortions right about the time we end terrorism and drug use. 108669[/snapback] Perfect, i can't wait. Do you propose we shall give up then? If we can't stop them altogether, why even bother right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Perfect, i can't wait. Do you propose we shall give up then? If we can't stop them altogether, why even bother right? 108699[/snapback] I don't care if you want to change it. Good luck with that. I'm just telling you the government making it illegal ain't going to do anything but put doctors and women in prison next to real criminals. That's an excellent solution that will have a similiar affect to what the Rockefeller laws have on NYS. If that's the solution you're looking for, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I said it before and I will say it again: If men were the ones that got pregnant and not women, and men were the ones carrying the babies for nine months and giving birth, and men were the ones getting raped, and men were the ones having to decide what to do with their bodies, men SURELY would not let a bunch of women politicians decide what is best for them. I would guess, conservatively, it would be like 80-20 in favor of legalized abortion. Just an opinion. Go ahead, say nah, it's your religious belief all you want. But just think about how much you don't like your wife or girlfriend or any girl telling you what to do, or that you can't do something, virtually ANYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 If the "logic" of abortion is that it's OK to kill unborn children for whatever reason, then shouldn't the government, in all its wisdom, put an end to the cycle of abortioneering by breaking the poverty/youth pregnancy cycle through mandatory sterilization of anyone who fathers or mothers a child under the age of 18? I mean, if we're talking about the good of the country here, I think it'd be far more humane and effective to cut off the baby-making machine at the source, not the end product. So my solution is this...allow these kids to have their one child. Then snippity-snip and the problem goes away. Same for anyone who receives an abortion at a taxpayer-funded clinic for reasons other than the health of the mother. Snip-snip, we suddenlyhave population growth control AND a reduction in poverty! Brilliant! I hope you're joking. Most of the medical community had this attitude and were already practicing sterilization in institutions to eradicate "feeblemindedness" when Hitler came to power. And we all know where that led to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'm pro-choice for 1 main reason: I'm old enough to remember when women were dying because they couldn't find safe abortions and they were going to get them no matter what. It was impossible to stop women from getting abortions, the question was basically: Should they risk their own death based on their socio-economic status? It was common practice for those (or their daughters) who could afford it to leave the country and get a safe abortion abroad. For the women in the USA who couldn't afford it it was a period of desperation, followed by a backalley illegal and dangerous abortion. Since the poorer were the ones dying, it made sense at the time abortion became legal to save the lives of the living, not the potential living. If making abortion illegal would have stopped all abortions, which in the "pro-life" mindset (or should I say -let the mother die mindset) is the goal, the case for outlawing it would have made a lot more sense. The reality of dead daughters, mothers, wives etc made the choice to make it legal much more supportable than to continue the practice of only the rich getting safe abortions. 108621[/snapback] EXACTLY my stance, eloquently stated. I have faith in the sanity of humans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Abstinence IS a valid solution to avoid abortion, I agree. BUT, I don't believe it is realistic or even commonplace. And what reality are you referring to? As for what history shows, I see a whole lotta cheatin' and runnin' around and children born out of wedlock in our history! Wasn't it George Washington who fathered children with one of his slaves? As for AIDS, you will still have homosexuals, needle sharing etc. It's unrealistic and pure fantasy to think that an entire generation would ever practice abstinence. It's just not gonna happen. 108567[/snapback] I never meant that looking back on history there has never been sex outside of marriage. But you can't deny that from the middle of the 20th century through the present, that practice has increased exponentially. I also never meant that it is realistic for an entire generation to practice abstinence. Obviously that is impossible. However, in theory it does prove my point, that sex outside of marriage is the major issue in this. As far as AIDS or abortion, it is proven that abstinence is a realistic and effective solution. In Africa where AIDS is a dangerous epidemic, Uganda has been a pioneer in educating the people about abstinence and monogomous relationships. Since the 1980's when the program started, pregnant women infected with HIV has gone from over 20% to close to 5%. If that isn't realistic and effective, I don't know what is. It is not unrealistic to expect similar results if used to reduce abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'm pro-choice for 1 main reason: I'm old enough to remember when women were dying because they couldn't find safe abortions and they were going to get them no matter what. It was impossible to stop women from getting abortions, the question was basically: Should they risk their own death based on their socio-economic status? It was common practice for those (or their daughters) who could afford it to leave the country and get a safe abortion abroad. For the women in the USA who couldn't afford it it was a period of desperation, followed by a backalley illegal and dangerous abortion. Since the poorer were the ones dying, it made sense at the time abortion became legal to save the lives of the living, not the potential living. If making abortion illegal would have stopped all abortions, which in the "pro-life" mindset (or should I say -let the mother die mindset) is the goal, the case for outlawing it would have made a lot more sense. The reality of dead daughters, mothers, wives etc made the choice to make it legal much more supportable than to continue the practice of only the rich getting safe abortions. 108621[/snapback] Let's assume that abortion is made illegal; should the law then be at fault for making it dangerous for anyone to kill another innocent human being? A bank robbery can be very risky and dangerous to the robber, does that mean we should make robbery legal? In the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many stupid things when there are better alternatives available. That's just the point: they choose. Sometimes they are bad choices, but it is still their own choice. There's no coercion and no one is forcing anyone to have a "backalley illegal" abortion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because he refuses to find employment. Both have better and safer options. These women are not risking "their own death based on their socio-economic status". They are risking their own death because they choose to do so. No one can deny that there are better options. My wife works as a labor and delivery nurse and often has 15-17 year old girls giving birth - some keep the babies and others give them up for adoption. Adoption is is a reasonable and realistic alternative that will solve any "socio-economic" issues they might have. It does not have to be a "period of desparation", nor do they have to choose dangerous, backalley abortions. Choice has its limits. Our right to choose ends where harm to another individual begins. That's true with every law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Let's assume that abortion is made illegal; should the law then be at fault for making it dangerous for anyone to kill another innocent human being? A bank robbery can be very risky and dangerous to the robber, does that mean we should make robbery legal? In the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many stupid things when there are better alternatives available. That's just the point: they choose. Sometimes they are bad choices, but it is still their own choice. There's no coercion and no one is forcing anyone to have a "backalley illegal" abortion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because he refuses to find employment. Both have better and safer options. These women are not risking "their own death based on their socio-economic status". They are risking their own death because they choose to do so. No one can deny that there are better options. My wife works as a labor and delivery nurse and often has 15-17 year old girls giving birth - some keep the babies and others give them up for adoption. Adoption is is a reasonable and realistic alternative that will solve any "socio-economic" issues they might have. It does not have to be a "period of desparation", nor do they have to choose dangerous, backalley abortions. Choice has its limits. Our right to choose ends where harm to another individual begins. That's true with every law. 109126[/snapback] There is no bandaid for the issue. The adoption argument is nothing more than a panacea or "pie in the sky" when you are talking in the millions ANNUALLY. Our society of instant gratification and blame placement instead of patience and personal responsibility are the biggest reasons this is even an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 There is no bandaid for the issue. The adoption argument is nothing more than a panacea or "pie in the sky" when you are talking in the millions ANNUALLY. Our society of instant gratification and blame placement instead of patience and personal responsibility are the biggest reasons this is even an issue. 109199[/snapback] Or, as Robin Williams said, "God gave us a brain and a penis but only enough blood to run one at a time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts