Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5908
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:19 am

Today this right, tomorrow the next. At what point does this country turn into a theocracy?

Any decent Christians left out there who can just mind thier own damn business? Forcing us to live by a narrow definiton of freedom and morality? Or can we make our own decisions regarding our lives?

And for those without a uterus...not our dance man.

[Edited 2006-02-23 22:25:52]
"My soul is in the sky". -Pyramus- A Midsummer's Night Dream
 
Jean Leloup
Posts: 2004
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 10:46 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:27 am

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 57):
Any decent Christians left out there who can just mind thier own damn business? Forcing us to live by a narrow definiton of freedom and morality? Or can we make our own decisions regarding our lives?

Read my signature line! :P

JL
Jean Leloup - original a.net moderator (2001-2005) and still recovering!
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:30 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 48):
Would a fireman in a coma for 10 years who needs to be fed through a GI tube and kept on a ventilator to breath lose any rights? They certainly can't function as a living organism without help.

Well, actually yes.

In the US itself, the life of such an individual can be subject to what his or her family believes the individual would have wanted. This is a full abrogation of rights. The inability of such an individual to function as a sentient being would also prohibit such basic rights as marriage, child rearing, voting, gun ownership, etc.

I don't believe that this analogy really helps the pro-life side any.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:34 am

This is a can of worms that doesn't bear opening right now, and it'll certainly be a divider when we need more unity.

Just like gun control, but involving life in a more direct manner. The arguments on both sides don't allow room for compromise when they should, and seek to squash any potential middle ground.

All that said, my personal feelings are twofold.

1. Abortion in most cases is wrong. It's being used as post-coital birthcontrol and does stop a beating heart. No one can say for certain that a gestating fetus does not possess life, and plenty of people can argue scientifically that the unborn child is alive and conscious to varying degrees. So, unless the mother's life is at stake (and a doctor would make that judgement), I feel it's wrong, and our society should work to protect those lives which cannot defend themselves.

2. Just like firearms, speeding and jaywalking you can't really prevent all the people from doing this, and to make it illegal is to drive it underground which prevents it from being regulated and monitored. Since it's a law that half the country would not approve of to the point of ignoring it then what's the point? Education and taking responsibility is the only real way to end this problem (and I say problem because most people who identify themselves as pro-life don't like abortion either...it's either an empowerment issue for them or a desire to avoid the challenges and problems of parenthood and taking responsibility).

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 56):
This does wonders for the world's opinion of South Dakota's lawmakers.

I get the impression they don't really care.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 56):
And it also goes to show the extremism of their real beliefs.

To be fair the ones that work against abortion feel the same way about their opponents.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 55):
So if a woman had a good chance of dying without an abortion, it's the right thing to just watch her die?

I have the feeling that most of the anti-abortion people would back off in the case of doctors making a difficult decision, as long as wholesale abortion was not legal. The extremists are not going to change their minds (either side) no matter what.


There is a third, and entirely amoral and economically based, thought I have about abortion......it does cut down on the number of people that will compete with my offspring (should I have any)/nieces/nephews; and fewer unwanted children from people unable to take care of them that will not be drawing upon societies teat. I know that's not very Christian or empathetic of me....Hell, it's fairly heartless and cold.... but the economics of this are pretty sound. Fewer children that enter the cycle of poor upbringing (I'd say that most expectant mothers who opt for abortion would make poor parents for the very reasons they give for getting the abortion) and poverty.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5908
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:37 am

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 59):


Read my signature line! :P

All hope is not lost then!
"My soul is in the sky". -Pyramus- A Midsummer's Night Dream
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:42 am

Illegal abortions will punish the poor more. Therefore the cycle of poverty wil again be perpetuated as they will not be able to go elsewhere to get an abotion while the wel off will still be able to terminate a pregnancy at relative will.

BTW i am still waiting to hear how many unwanted kids or teen mothers Albrechio is supporting.


It is one thing to say abortions should be illegal but at the same time abbrogate all responsiblity for the forced pregnancy.
GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
SpinalTap
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:18 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:49 am

I fail to see where life ends and begins in the reproductive process. To me a sperm and an egg both have life when they fuse to form a zygote and because the zygote is alive it grows. I don't see a point where something inanimate becomes alive/human. For this reason I do not support any form of abortion except if the pregnancy directly endangers the life of the mother.

I am a Catholic and that is my choice. I don't want to shove my views on premarital sex down people's throats; people have to make their own decisions. In my view the government should be free to let you make your decisions for yourself but you must take responsibility for your actions. The government should only be involved to protect the weak. To me the unborn are the most weak and are in need of the most protection. Except in the case of rape two humans choose to have had sex with or without "protection". "Protection" is known to not be 100 % reliable and its users should accept this fact and deal responsibly with the consequences. By that I mean not negatively impacting the life of the unborn child. I believe that human life should be treated with a lot more dignity and respect rather than being thrown in a trash bin (literally). There are people that can not have children naturally or even with assistance that would like to adopt that is one responsible way to deal with an unwanted child (in NZ there is a waiting list for adoption). People that don’t want children could also use a virtually foolproof form of protection – which perhaps should be government subsided – “sterilization” (vasectomy, tubal ligation - which can actually be reversed in just about all cases). The other responsible way is obviously abstaining from sex (specifically vaginal) if you can't accept the idea of having offspring.

In the case of rape/incest I guess I am more torn and have some understanding for abortions but saying that I am also of the view that while the child may have been conceived in an evil act that everybody that is conceived is a fresh slate and it is not the unborn child’s fault that one of their parents was a rapist.

I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said "Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born"

And it was Jesus who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I believe even most non Christians accept this as a good principle)
"I get what they call a stipend, a stipend is like money but its such as small amount they don't really call it money"
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:51 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 61):
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 56):
And it also goes to show the extremism of their real beliefs.

To be fair the ones that work against abortion feel the same way about their opponents.

We're talking rape and incest here.
Yes, incest may be rare, but rape is not.
Whatever one's beliefs and opposition to abortion, how misogynistic does one have to be in one's extremism to force a raped woman to bear a child?
What is wrong with these lawmakers that they refused to consider amendments to include these exceptions? I can't imagine that the citizens of South Dakota would desire such an outcome.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:56 am

My solution... Soylent Green!!

Seriously though, there is something I want to insert into this debate that hasn't been talked about much (that I've noticed).

People don't like having abortions. One of the things I hear opponents of abortion say alot is that its an "easy way out" or an "excuse for not using contraception", etc. etc. What many people don't understand is that having an abortion is NOT an easy thing to go through, it can even be traumatizing for many women. Psychologically, it is a difficult thing to handle. Its not like people who are pro-choice want as many abortions as we can. The truth is that ultimately, everybody would like to lower the number of abortions. Yet, it is also ultimately in the hands of the woman to make the decision.

Now of course, I'm not a woman and don't see it from their point of view. But this is just my observation from reading and discussing the issue.
NO URLS in signature
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:57 am

People toss arround adoption and adoption waiting lists. Usually it is men. But it is not so easy to give up someting that you have carried for 9 months and given birth to. At the beginning of the pregnancy it is very easy to say you are going to give the baby up for adoption. 9 months later it is not so easy. Being animals we have instincts and a mother will bond with their baby. Are you prepared to force poor people to give up their children for adoption? If not you had better be prepared to support them if you want to force them into pregnancy.

If it was so easy there would not be waiting lists as there are many un wanted children that mother keep because a mother instinct is turned on at birth.

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
seanp11
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:16 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting Spinaltap (Reply 64):
“sterilization” (vasectomy, tubal ligation - which can actually be reversed in just about all cases

I've heard just the opposite. If you get sterilized, you shouldn't count on having children.

Quoting Spinaltap (Reply 64):
The government should only be involved to protect the weak.

But women are not considered the weak? They have been oppressed for centuries. They should lose their rights over their reproduction just for the rights of a tiny zygote or embryo that might be miscarried anyways?

Quoting Spinaltap (Reply 64):
"Protection" is known to not be 100 % reliable and its users should accept this fact and deal responsibly with the consequences.

Of course! Just don't have sex! That solves everything. That may work for you, but not everybody else.

Again, I must ask: What right does any man have, to say that a woman has to go through with a pregnancy?
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:04 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 60):
In the US itself, the life of such an individual can be subject to what his or her family believes the individual would have wanted. This is a full abrogation of rights. The inability of such an individual to function as a sentient being would also prohibit such basic rights as marriage, child rearing, voting, gun ownership, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but legally doesn't the guardian step in and supposedly act in the individual's interest. Certainly and act that was clearly prejudicial against the individual's interest wouldn't survive a legal challange.

Wasn't that the central issue in the (I forget her name the one down in Florida last Spring)? The legal guardian was the husband and as such had power to make decisions. The family petitioned the state for a review of the guardianship because they felt that he wasn't acting in her best interest. A court found to the contrary (that he was acting in her interest) and that's when the whole mess blew up and Congress got involved.

As such I don't think that it's an abrogation of right but rather a transfer of who gets to decide how the "disabled" individual's interest and rights are best protected.

As for the rights you list, don't they require legal capacity. In contrast the right to be alive requires no capacity. That is to say a state can't deprive a mentally disabled individual of the right to life any easier than they can deprive a fully capable citizen from that right.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:06 am

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 68):
What right does any man have, to say that a woman has to go through with a pregnancy?

The interesting thing is that if the woman does have the baby, the man is responsible for alimony.

This is for just discussion purposes so: If the woman has freedom of choice to have this baby then how come the man is financially responsible? If she decides to have the baby, then isn't she deciding to bear the cost of raising the child?

So the man has no right to tell a woman what to do, yet he must provide financial support should the woman Choose to have the kid...

It seems a little of a double standard when looked at in that specific context. Shouldn't the man be absolved of alimony if he opposed having the baby to begin with an offered to pay for an abortion?


-Sam
 
seanp11
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:16 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:12 am

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 70):
The interesting thing is that if the woman does have the baby, the man is responsible for alimony.

You mean child support. Alimony is from a divorce.

That said, I have a relative, who before he married into my family, went through a rough divorce, with three kids. He is forced to pay child support, even though he is the one who buys everything for the kids, and actually takes care of them. Their mother uses the child support for anything but the kids. I believe that child support should take much more into account than who's the father, and who's the mother.
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 70):
The interesting thing is that if the woman does have the baby, the man is responsible for alimony.

Um actually look at how many deadbeat dads there are out there. Plus it takes a long time in civil court to get a judgment. Sadly in today's society it is far to easy for the Man to walk away with out many reprecussions....

So while the mother is spending years trying to get a settlment are you prepared to supprt the mother? Plus just because she gets a judgment does not mean she will get paid. She may be awarded back payments but in most cases the man will never pay for those. So in the 3 or 4 years that the woman has to fight who is going to help pay for the fored child.

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 67):
At the beginning of the pregnancy it is very easy to say you are going to give the baby up for adoption. 9 months later it is not so easy. Being animals we have instincts and a mother will bond with their baby. Are you prepared to force poor people to give up their children for adoption?

Wait wait wait. In the other thread you were characterizing a late trimester fetus as a blob of cells? Are you now saying that a mother bonds with this blob? Which one is it?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:15 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 20):
So because it dosen't affect me I shouldn't give a rats ass ???

When are you going to answer the question instead of cowardly evasion?

What gives you the right to speak for women? Are you a woman? What experience of abortion from a woman's perspective have you got?

Now answer the question.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:20 am

I am saying that the mother if FORCED to have the baby she will bond.....also when used as a counter to the agrument thrown out that if you do not want the baby just give it up for adoption. I was pointing out that forcing women to have a pregnancy will do nothing to aleviate the adoption wiating list but at the same time will casue a lot more social problems as you now have a young mother that is trapped in the spiral of poverty( i know not always). Therfore i was asking if you are willing to force women to keep babies are you prepared to support the mother is she is unable to give the child up or do you advocate seizing children from the poor?

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:23 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 75):
I am saying that the mother if FORCED to have the baby she will bond.....

So at what point do you believe we go from blob of cells to baby?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:29 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 76):
So at what point do you believe we go from blob of cells to baby?

Personally, when the fetus is viable it stops being a blob of cells. Remember i said i was pro-life personally, when it comes to my situation, But i am not willing to let my personal views take the rights away from someone else. Because someone else believes something different is a matter between them and their doctor.....Not them, their doctor, and politicians.

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:34 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 77):
Personally, when the fetus is viable it stops being a blob of cells.

Therefore aren't you supporting infanticide? remember you agreed that after viability it's a baby.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:39 am

Nope...I am saying what i believe for me only. If I was to get an 8 month abortion i would see it is infanticide.

But when it comes to abortion it comes down what the person believes. It is not for me to judge what someone else believes or does....

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:50 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 69):
Correct me if I'm wrong but legally doesn't the guardian step in and supposedly act in the individual's interest. Certainly and act that was clearly prejudicial against the individual's interest wouldn't survive a legal challange.

Yes, but the rights of the individual per se are no longer uncontestable, as they would be if the individual were alive. Besides, if one wants to factor in the individual's interests, then some can make the argument that life (even one in a prolonged vegetative state) would be the ultimate interest. The analogy you proposed was in response to someone who implied that the rights of the unborn can't trump that of the mother because of the fetus' inability to survive independent of the mother. I don't buy that argument either, and so any analogy (IMHO) is bound to fail because you're dealing with a debatable premise to begin with.

Quoting Spinaltap (Reply 64):
In the case of rape/incest I guess I am more torn and have some understanding for abortions but saying that I am also of the view that while the child may have been conceived in an evil act that everybody that is conceived is a fresh slate and it is not the unborn child’s fault that one of their parents was a rapist.

True enough.
The evil of the parent is seldom genetically instilled into the child.
However, that is not the issue here. The issue is that of the innocent woman who for no fault of her own is being forced to bear the burden of what the rapist perpetrated upon her. In our zeal to respect the life of an unborn, innocent though it may be, do we completely ride slip shod over the well being of the victim of rape? If we force a woman to have a child created out of rape, aren't we as a society implicitly parties to her prolonged humiliation and violation as well? Abortion may be an ugly solution to that conundrum, but its an imperfection that we have to live with.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:58 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 6):
Keep in mind that South Dakota is probaly more conservative than most other states so that might be the reason why this bill popped up there. It would be much tougher to ban abortion here in New York for example...

As far as I'm concerned, to each state their own. Bring it on. It's not like any state with a Major City will have a ban, maybe Texas.
 
SpinalTap
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:18 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:19 am

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 68):
Quoting Spinaltap (Reply 64):
“sterilization” (vasectomy, tubal ligation - which can actually be reversed in just about all cases

I've heard just the opposite. If you get sterilized, you shouldn't count on having children.

This is a table from http://www.harryfisch.com/vasectomyreversal.htm#52232507

Years between
vasectomy
and reversal
< 3
3 - 8
9 - 14
> 15

Sperm Return
97%
88%
79%
71%

Pregnancy Rate
76%
53%
44%
30%

You can always have your sperm cyrogenically frozen as well.

Tubal ligation reversal
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/tubal_reversal.html

IVF is apparently less successful than having the tubal ligation reversed.

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 68):
But women are not considered the weak? They have been oppressed for centuries. They should lose their rights over their reproduction just for the rights of a tiny zygote or embryo that might be miscarried anyways?

Oh please, who is weaker and is more defenseless - the unborn child or the mother. They have been oppressed for centuries - thats not nice but I don't get your point here. Yes a miscarriage could occur and that is sad.

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 68):
Of course! Just don't have sex! That solves everything. That may work for you, but not everybody else.

Thats why I offered three different alternatives.

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 68):
Again, I must ask: What right does any man have, to say that a woman has to go through with a pregnancy?

Why should a woman have the right to kill the unborn child? What rights does the unborn child have?
"I get what they call a stipend, a stipend is like money but its such as small amount they don't really call it money"
 
Guest

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:47 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 11):
ITS CALLED DOING THE RIGHT THING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the right thing is to stay out of other peoples business.

I can't believe this is coming from the party who's supporters supposedly want the gov't out of peoples lives, just with their own convenient exceptions to suit their agenda.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 20):
Its exactly because of that attitude that Americans are hated throughout the world......

Wow, you are sooo far off base with that comment, I don't even know where to begin. They hate us for getting involved, now according to you we're hated because we stay out of stuff. Have you completely gone off the deep end?

If you want to find the real reason we're hated, look at the folks people like you put in power.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 27):
Many lazy and reckless people instead of using condoms or proper birth control simply resort to abortion.

How can you say that, and go on to say this...

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 29):
Those back-alley coat hanger stories were greatly exxagerated, I doubt that they are true.....

Where is your evidence that people just have abortions as a form of birth control? Have you volunteered at any support clinics? I have. Have any experience in human services? I do.

I hate to break this to you, but you have drank the right wing kool aide. Abortions are a lot more rare than you make them out to be. It's not a convenient thing, and the process is a lot more complicated than you think it is.

But I'm sorry, I'm speaking from facts and experience. You speak from how something makes you feel. I guess there's no getting thru to you.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 33):
It cannot be used simply at whim because of women who are too lazy or retarted to use birth control.

Again, where is your data to back this up? Do you have any evidence, or is this just what you want to believe?

I'm sure you're reply with be though provoking.  Yeah sure

B
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:15 am

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 83):
Again, where is your data to back this up? Do you have any evidence, or is this just what you want to believe

There is no evidence forth coming....All he is doing is arguing with one line sound bites that he has heard other say instead of facts.

GS

I am still waiting to hear how many unwanted childred you are supporting at this time....
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
Nordair
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:36 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9):

Why does a 21 year old man presume he has the right to speak for women?

 checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 7):
What if the woman is under so much pressure that she's not able to make a rational decision ???

What sort of pressure are you under that you are unable to make a rational thought?

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 20):
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 16):
What gives you the right to speak for women? List your exerience of being a woman.

So because it dosen't affect me I shouldn't give a rats ass ???

Its exactly because of that attitude that Americans are hated throughout the world......

Whitehatter is not American and neither are many of us. So, what is it you are trying to say? That we are "closet" Americans? I really hate to break the news to you, but abortions are not exclusive to the USA.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 33):
It cannot be used simply at whim because of women who are too lazy or retarted to use birth control.

Yup. It's all the women's fault. The man had nothing to do with semen fertilizing an egg. It is all the fault of women.  Yeah sure

Now why don't you pop that soother back in your mouth and go back to sleep until your diaper needs changing again.
"It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda." - Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:29 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 57):
Whatever one's beliefs and opposition to abortion, how misogynistic does one have to be in one's extremism to force a raped woman to bear a child?
What is wrong with these lawmakers that they refused to consider amendments to include these exceptions? I can't imagine that the citizens of South Dakota would desire such an outcome.

Well, I believe that they are thinking that the child had nothing to say about being the product of rape, and to kill that child is to compound the crime.

I mean, would you kill a child who was born of rape? So, if you believe that the unborn child is more than an "unviable tissue mass" then for many that belief/value system carries over and it has nothing to do with mysoginism (excluding, of course, the control freaks out there).

I'd have to say, personally, that I'd be very conflicted on this issue if it was my wife/sister/niece who was in this situation, and I pray it never happens to someone I love. I'll pray that it never happens again to anyone. It can't hurt.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
A332
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:58 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:41 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9):
Why does a 21 year old man presume he has the right to speak for women?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. Why is it always the men that rant and rave about abortion the most? It's not as if the men have to go through the whole 9 month term, push the thing out, and then watch the man disappear like a coward... yes, it happens!  Wink

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 34):
I am simply supporting a bill that is up for debate in South Dakota.

And by that, you are supporting the removal of a woman's right to choose. Simple logic, no?

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 37):
That's bacause I'm being passionate about this issue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And acting like an immature lunatic, devoid of any facts.

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 40):
What your so called arguments are doing is pissing people off. You are not coming accross as intellegent, just a whiney kid.

Amen.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 43):
Then why do many politicians support a ban ???

Politicians would sleep with the devil himself if it was popular with the electorate in his/her area... and hey, many politicans DO NOT support a ban... crazy hey?

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 45):
Either because they have sincere, well thought-out concerns (perhaps like Pope's), or because they are ensuring votes by pandering the the lowest common denominator among their constituents, i.e., you.

Exactly.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 50):
Any decent Christians left out there who can just mind thier own damn business? Forcing us to live by a narrow definiton of freedom and morality? Or can we make our own decisions regarding our lives?

There's not many... most Christians seem to be, if I may paraphrase, "the lowest common denominator".
Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:43 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 78):
mean, would you kill a child who was born of rape?

That is one question that only a women who has been raped can make. I do not think anyone can know how they would respond. I also like to believe that not all doctors are going to force a woman to bear a child of rape is she wants to terminate it. Just because she is not physically indanger she is mentally and a medical record is between the woman and her doctor. Remember there was illegal doctor office abortions before they were legal.

Still does not make it right though.

Being Pro choice is not being Pro death......It just means that the woman gets to chose what is right for her...

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 34):


Quoting Doona,reply=39:

He's not the one dictating to women what they should not be allowed to do.

Neither am I. I am simply supporting a bill that is up for debate in South Dakota.

Don't play stupid with us. The bill you are supporting dictates to women what they are not allowed to do, and you know that full well!

-DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:01 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 30):
someone else as well. The fetus

A fetus is not a person. A fetus is not "someone". A fetus is not an individual, since it is dependent. A fetus does not have a rational mind - even though it may have all the hardware for it. Perception is required for conceptual thinking, being weightless and in the dark does not let conceptual consciousness develop.

A fetus is not a person.

Quoting Pope (Reply 30):
I find it funny that you stopped participating in the other thread once the hard questions started to get asked only to pop up here. I guess the old saying is true - he who fights and runs away....

No, I did not. Formulate your "tough questions" and I'll answer them. Here are some for you:

1. What is a person
2. Why does a person have a right to life

Let's see how you do there. Any reference to inexistent imaginary entities will be discarded, as is proper in rational debate.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 53):
1. Abortion in most cases is wrong. It's being used as post-coital birthcontrol and does stop a beating heart. No one can say for certain that a gestating fetus does not possess life, and plenty of people can argue scientifically that the unborn child is alive and conscious to varying degrees. So, unless the mother's life is at stake (and a doctor would make that judgement), I feel it's wrong, and our society should work to protect those lives which cannot defend themselves.

Making a stake stops a beating heart. Biological characteristics are not the basis of morality.

Plants, bacteria, ants, parasites all possess life. Possessing life is not the basis of morality.

Consciousness is necessary for morality, you are close there. One thing escapes you: consciousness is necessary but not suficient. Independence is also necessary.

Rights are freedoms, one has to be capable of acting freely in order to exercise rights. This requires independence. No true right requires action by another, it requires only inaction.

The right to life is the right not to be killed, not the demand to have my life supported by others (as the welfare statists would have one believe).

The right to property is the right not to have my property taken from me, not a demand that others give me property (as the welfare statists would have one believe).

The right of free speech is the right to express my opinions, not a demand that others give me the means to publish my ideas.

Granting rights to a fetus, a dependent entity, is a demand that the mother support it. It is not a true right.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 51):
Read my signature line!

Although I agree with you on this issue, your signature is two strikes against you in my book.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 66):
Now answer the question.

Your question does not deserve an answer. It is a challenge to the human mind itself in assuming that no knowlege is possible except by direct experience. It is ridiculous on the face of it.

What do you know about flying? Are you a bird? Making airplanes is impossible. That is what you are saying.

mrocktor
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:17 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
What is a person

According to the Webster's dictionary on my desk it is a "human." Which begs the question what is a human? Human - of, related to, or characteristic of humans; a bipedal primate mammal.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
2. Why does a person have a right to life

Are you asking in the US from a legal standpoint? Take at look at the 5 and 14th amendments. Take a look at our Declaration of Independence. Take a look at almost 300 years of jurisprudence on the issue (oh but as you've already stated, you don't care what the law is). I think that the answer is quite apparent. Are you advocating that a person does not have a right to life? That murder is allowable? Come on, now you're even beyond the extreme left.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Formulate your "tough questions" and I'll answer them.

Well you clearly stated in the other thread that you haven't read Roe so the answers to my challenges regarding the support for your failings arguments are readily apparent. It's easy to formulate legal opinions when you want to remain ignorant of what the law is.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
User avatar
KaiGywer
Posts: 11183
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:23 am

We covered this issue in class two weeks ago, and my professor said it well (he is a political consultant, managing campaigns). His candidate is a democrat and pro-choice. They went to a very pro-life area to campaign, and one man said the only thing they needed to know was if he was pro-choice or pro-life. He said pro-choice and the guy wouldn't talk to him after that. After the speech, the candidate went up to the guy and asked to speak with him. He asked the guy "how many abortions do you want in the US next year?". The guy obviously said "none", to which the candidate replied "good. So do I". He explained that being pro-choice does not mean they WANT abortions, rather that they want the ability to choose.

So both sides agree that they don't want any abortions, but we know people will get pregnant, so abortion is a thing that is available. But, as he said, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions.
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:30 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 83):
Are you asking in the US from a legal standpoint?

No, I'm not asking from a legal standpoint. I'm asking from an ethical standpoint. The right to life did not come into existence when someone wrote it down. Murder was wrong well before writing was even invented.

Quoting Pope (Reply 83):
It's easy to formulate legal opinions

No, I'm not formulating legal opinions. I'm passing moral judgment. Knowing the law is irrelevant. The law follows ethics, not the other way around.

Now answer the question.

mrocktor
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:40 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 85):
The law follows ethics, not the other way around.

If that were the case, then there would absolutely no justification for partial birth abortion. I've never heard an ethicist say that birth all but the head of a viable fetus, then draining its brain through a metal tube is ethical.

There are unethical laws on the books and there are also illegal acts that are completely ethical.

A father breaking a window to steal a loaf of bread in order to feed his family is breaking the law but committing a perfectly ethical act.

Likewise, when a politician takes a legal campaign contribution and then goes out an lobbies for a particular cause may be acting legally but unethically.

Debating with you is like pushing against water. You want to exclude everyting that you don't want to have to address (i.e. the law, ethics, reality) and then pose questions in a manner that only you seem able to answer.

The US is a country of laws and the matter of abortion has to be handled within the context and within the framework of our legal system.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
User avatar
alberchico
Topic Author
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:45 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 53):
This is a can of worms that doesn't bear opening right now, and it'll certainly be a divider when we need more unity.

Just like gun control, but involving life in a more direct manner. The arguments on both sides don't allow room for compromise when they should, and seek to squash any potential middle ground.

Unfortunately I feel that America will remain forever divided on this issue.......
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
User avatar
alberchico
Topic Author
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:53 am

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 75):
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 20):
Its exactly because of that attitude that Americans are hated throughout the world......

Wow, you are sooo far off base with that comment, I don't even know where to begin. They hate us for getting involved, now according to you we're hated because we stay out of stuff. Have you completely gone off the deep end?

Americans are hated for both getting too involved in world affairs and for not giving a damm about other worldly issues.
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
TheSorcerer
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:35 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:22 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 26):
Quoting LH477 (Reply 28):
So you now determine what's right and wrong.....

Not me , the U.S Supreme Court

"ITS CALLED DOING THE RIGHT THING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Well you've seemed to have determined that not having an abortion is "Doing the right thing".
How did you determine that?
Dominic
ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:37 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 86):
I've never heard an ethicist say that birth all but the head of a viable fetus, then draining its brain through a metal tube is ethical.

You just heard me. I gave you the reasons too.

Quoting Pope (Reply 86):
There are unethical laws on the books and there are also illegal acts that are completely ethical.

True. This is not as it *should* be, do you agree? Whether you agree or not give the following some consideration:

The purpose of law and government is to protect individual rights. Thus the *only* things that should be commited to law are bans on teh infringement of individual rights. Since true rights are non-conflicting, this means that the scope of proper government is very limited.

Thus, in the ideal case, law forces you to respect other's rights - it does not force you to be moral. It only assures that you are the only victim of your immorality.

Quoting Pope (Reply 86):
A father breaking a window to steal a loaf of bread in order to feed his family is breaking the law but committing a perfectly ethical act.

He is stealing. Theft is immoral. He could work for the bread or ask for a donation. One's need is not a valid claim upon another man's life or property.

Quoting Pope (Reply 86):
Debating with you is like pushing against water. You want to exclude everyting that you don't want to have to address (i.e. the law, ethics, reality) and then pose questions in a manner that only you seem able to answer.

I want to adress reality and ethics, you want to debate the wording of the law. I'm a philosopher, you are a lawyer. Law follows philosophy, if you don't want to discuss that which is the basis for law it's your loss.

Quoting Pope (Reply 86):
The US is a country of laws and the matter of abortion has to be handled within the context and within the framework of our legal system.

Certainly. But deciding *what needs to be done* within that framework demands moral judgment. You can debate what the law is all you want. The moment you start to discuss what the law should be you can't run from me.

mrocktor
 
KSYR
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:45 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:10 am

The government absolutely has the right to tell women that they can't kill their unborn children.

Suppose I want to go out and pummel somebody right now, just beat the sh*t out of them. I could do so, but I would rightfully be charged with assault. Therefore, the federal government in effect is telling me what I can and can't do with my body.

Same thing with illegal drugs. We tell women (and men) that they can't do certain things to their bodies every day when we arrest them for posession/distribution of drugs.

And finally, it is the duty of the government to ensure that all of its citizens have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all have the right to life and we have the right not to be killed because our mothers could be whores whores or are too lazy to adequately deal with us.

Laziness or bad decisions are not an excuse for murder.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:12 am

Learned in class the other day, currently there are 27 states drafting state bills to ban abortion completely.

Does anyone else see a trend?
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:21 am

Quoting KSYR (Reply 91):
The government absolutely has the right to tell women that they can't kill their unborn children.

Unborn are not children. A fetus is not a person. And no, the government has no such right.

Quoting KSYR (Reply 91):
Suppose I want to go out and pummel somebody right now, just beat the sh*t out of them.

Somebody is a person, he has rights. One of them is not being physicaly damaged by you.

If you can't see the difference between the government enforcing something you must NOT do (murder, assault) and the government enforcing something you MUST do (gestate bear and rear an unwanted child, the draft, compulsory education, taxes) you are far from understanding the difference between freedom and tyrany.

Quoting KSYR (Reply 91):
Same thing with illegal drugs. We tell women (and men) that they can't do certain things to their bodies every day when we arrest them for posession/distribution of drugs.

The government most certainly has no right to tell me what to do with myself. If I want to take cocaine, I should be free to do so - and free to pay the consequences. Since the government takes uppon itself to bear the consequences (welfare state) it assumes also the authority to make our decisions. This is how a free country becomes a dictatorship.

Myself I'll make my own decisions and bear the consequences. No, I don't use drugs - that would be incredibly stupid.

Quoting KSYR (Reply 91):
We all have the right to life and we have the right not to be killed because our mothers could be whores whores or are too lazy to adequately deal with us.

"We" are all independent entities. What you are saying is:

"Women should be forced to gestate and conceive against their will"

Rights are freedoms of action, not demands of action of others.

A fetus is not a person. A fetus is not an individual, it is *dependent*. A fetus can have no rights because they would be demands uppon another.

mrocktor
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:42 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 90):
You just heard me. I gave you the reasons too.

An aeronautical engineer you may be. An ethicist you are not.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 90):
True. This is not as it *should* be, do you agree? Whether you agree or not give the following some consideration:

No, I wouldn't. Laws are minimum standards of behavior that a society sets for its citizenry not standards to be aspired to. Don't confuse the two. On a personal side, I would never pretend that a government (any government) knows what is and what is not moral.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 90):
I want to adress reality and ethics, you want to debate the wording of the law. I'm a philosopher, you are a lawyer.

The rule of law in the US is reality. You want to ignore the law, formulate your own standards and then by your own admission, impose them on others as the arbiter of what is and is not moral. Therefore it is illogical for you to say you want to discuss reality.

BTW - I am not an attorney nor have I ever gone to law school.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:21 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 94):
An aeronautical engineer you may be. An ethicist you are not.

Yes I am. So are you and so must be everyone since every choice in life comes down to morals.

Some put thought into it others blindly follow a religion or the ideas of other men.

Quoting Pope (Reply 94):
No, I wouldn't. Laws are minimum standards of behavior that a society sets for its citizenry not standards to be aspired to. Don't confuse the two. On a personal side, I would never pretend that a government (any government) knows what is and what is not moral.

That just shows you didn't understand the question. Laws are not handed down by Zeus, someone actually has to write them. How does that person decide what law is right? Ethics.

Quoting Pope (Reply 94):
The rule of law in the US is reality. You want to ignore the law, formulate your own standards and then by your own admission, impose them on others as the arbiter of what is and is not moral. Therefore it is illogical for you to say you want to discuss reality.

Hardly, I fully accept the law as it is. I however am free to question the morality of the law. Laws are not above ethics, politics follows philosophy not vice versa.

Quoting Pope (Reply 94):
BTW - I am not an attorney nor have I ever gone to law school.

Figurative speech is clearly lost on you.

You still have not answered the question:

2. What about a person gives it a right to life.

A hint: with your definition of person (which is incorrect) you will get nowhere.

mrocktor
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:22 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 87):
Unfortunately I feel that America will remain forever divided on this issue.......



Quoting Alberchico (Reply 88):
Americans are hated for both getting too involved in world affairs and for not giving a damm about other worldly issues.

Albrechio i see you are still communicationg via sound bites... bigthumbsup 

I am still waiting to hear how many unwanted children you have adopted or are supporting. How many teenage mothers do ou have living in your house. It is one thing to rally against something but if you do you had better be prepared to be part of the solution that will result.

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18632
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:25 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 93):
A fetus is not a person. A fetus is not an individual, it is *dependent*. A fetus can have no rights because they would be demands uppon another.

Isn't a baby or toddler the same thing?
I don't take responsibility at all
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:29 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 95):
How does that person decide what law is right? Ethics.

Obviously you've never studied the US Congress.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 95):
What about a person gives it a right to life.

I have. See my response above.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 95):
Hardly, I fully accept the law as it is. I however am free to question the morality of the law. Laws are not above ethics, politics follows philosophy not vice versa.

The problem is that we're discussing the South Dakota's abortion ban, not the ethics behind it.

You've still yet to provide any published work from a respected ethicist supporting partial birth abortion. You've repeatedly stated your opinion but have provided nothing to back it up.

The problem with ethics is that it depends on an ethical basis that not everyone shares. As a society, the law tries to create the minimum standard so that society can function. Subjectively created ethical rules do not serve that purpose.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: South Dakota To Ban Abortion

Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:29 am

Emotions certainly do enter these arguments.

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 80):
That is one question that only a women who has been raped can make. I do not think anyone can know how they would respond. I also like to believe that not all doctors are going to force a woman to bear a child of rape is she wants to terminate it. Just because she is not physically indanger she is mentally and a medical record is between the woman and her doctor.

I disagree. Using that logic the mother of a 3 month old has the authority to end her child's life because it's causing her emotional distress. Even without that reasoning why is delivery of a child ensued by turning the infant over to the orphanage more difficult than ending the childs life while in the womb? Either way there's stress, and I don't believe that emotional distress is an adequate reason for ending a life.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
A fetus is not a person. A fetus is not "someone". A fetus is not an individual, since it is dependent.

That's your opinion. You express it as if it's undeniable fact and it most certainly is not incontestable.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
A fetus does not have a rational mind - even though it may have all the hardware for it

How do you know? Does a three month old have a rational mind? What's the difference? Are you saying that a child two days before birth is less viable than a child two days after birth? What's the difference? I see it more as a difference in opinion and perspective.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Perception is required for conceptual thinking, being weightless and in the dark does not let conceptual consciousness develop.

So, when I sit in a sensory deprivation chamber I'm incapable of conceptual thinking? Helen Keller was incapable of conceptual thought? She saw and heard nothing. It was all feel for her.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
1. What is a person
2. Why does a person have a right to life

A person.....how about a human? A human is defined through biology.
Our society has deemed that humans have an inherent right to live, while keeping the right to deprive humans of their rights through due process. So...are you simply saying that unborn children should be categorized as undeserving of legal protection, or that they should be deprived of their right to live for the sake of convenience/emotional weakness?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Let's see how you do there. Any reference to inexistent imaginary entities will be discarded, as is proper in rational debate.

Well, there you go....letting emotion enter into this debate and having it come out as angry aggressive sarcasm that decries everyone elses thoughts but those that agree with you....

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Making a stake stops a beating heart.

What? Is that a Buffy reference?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Plants, bacteria, ants, parasites all possess life. Possessing life is not the basis of morality

OK...well, what about human beings? Are you saying that there is an age minimum or threshold for your morality?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Consciousness is necessary for morality, you are close there. One thing escapes you: consciousness is necessary but not suficient. Independence is also necessary.

What about all those people who are concious but lack morality as we define it? As far as independence goes....well, infants are by no means independent. Should they be sacrificed if they don't fit into the plans of the parents?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Rights are freedoms, one has to be capable of acting freely in order to exercise rights. This requires independence. No true right requires action by another, it requires only inaction.

Once again....independence? What about our elderly confined to nursing homes....they have lost their independence....do they deserve to be pushed off the shore on an ice floe? By the reasoning you laid out they are unable to enjoy rights.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 82):
Granting rights to a fetus, a dependent entity, is a demand that the mother support it. It is not a true right.

Granting rights? No one grants rights in our society. Rights, stated and unstated are guaranteed and defended by our constitution. Who are you to define limits to our rights? Our society does so by voting limits, but an individual cannot do this.

So, where do you think that your opinion ends and facts begin?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, Baidu [Spider] and 41 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos