Democrats Need To Rethink Abortion Issue

Next level, how can you possibly compare the three?

Originally posted by NextLevel
(I'm not a democrat or a republican - I'm a human).

Anywho, to wit:

Abortion = killing.
Killing = taking the life of a living thing.
Living things = things which are alive in the sense that they give and take from the resources here on the earth.

That being said:

-> Is a tree a living thing? (Yes)
-> Is a fish a living thing? (Yes)
-> Is a 3 week old fetus a living thing? (Duh, yes)



[edit on 3-11-2004 by NextLevel]

Next Level,
Your comparison of human life with that of trees and fish was indeed amusing. But let's move on.

You're right, I am a hypocrite. But not because I voted for Bush. I voted for Kerry. I was willing to ignore an issue like preserving fetal life because I was caught up in the frenzy of "Hate Bush Fever". It says a lot about my value system, and how I need to be stronger with my convictions. It is frustrating that there is no liberal or democratic candidate out there who is pro-life--I still don't know how to reconcile that with my beliefs. There is extremity on both sides, left & right--and it's a huge problem.




[edit on 3-11-2004 by Cassie Clay]

Originally posted by Cassie Clay
In every situation there are extreme cases. These extreme cases make up the minority of all cases. I don't believe that having an all-or-nothing view about abortion is the answer--because nothing in life is all-or-nothing.

I am sorry but that is an excuse to justify your on again, off again moral stance. it does not adequately explain why you would endorse the killing of any one foetus over another.. What gives you the right to decide that one deserves to live and the other does not?

If it is medically proven that the woman is going to die if she doesn't get the baby out--she shouldn't be forced to die, that's an insane extreme-conservative viewpoint.

Why not? you are murdering one to save another and you get to decide which one should live? You are forcing that baby to die, exactly what you argue against for the mother.

But a teenager who had unprotected sex & now wants to get an abortion is not an "extreme case." Women who use abortion to "get rid of" an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy make up the bulk of abortion cases--and their situation does not justify killing a fetus. It is greatly inconvenient & heartrending & awful but it doesn't justify ending a life, sorry.

I accept that, I always have and always will, because I do not care for the use of abortion in that regard, and I am absolutely against the horrific act of partial birth abortion. At the same token, I am not so blind as to not note that I would not want anyone to be forced to carry a child by rape, or so severely deformed or mentally impaired that the parent(s) wonder who will take care of it when they are gone. Therefore to take a stand on the side of abortion laws would be extremely hypocritical, unethical and immoral. And I sincerely have issues with forcing women to bring unwanted children into this world, when those parents cannot be forced to care for the child, and the majority of the very people so against abortion, are the same who salivate at the thought of the destruction of the social services, the only structure that will take that unwanted child off the streets.

The anti-abortion activists have a warped sense of responsibility and morality indeed. Legislate laws which aim to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, force the birth of unwanted children, increase the number of children abandoned or molested, or beaten or who roam the streets, and leave them on their own to fester in poverty and what not.

The day that society gets it right is the day that men are made to bare the same burden for the life they have created as women. That day will never materialize because I doubt very highly that the men who run the governments will ever legislate that if a woman does not wish to care for a child she is forced to birth, the man must; or that the man is fully as responsible for that child. Sadly, the moral right are the same who praise stay at home mothers and call that job very important, but don't give a damn about that mother when the provider walks away from her and the child and fights tooth and nail to ensure she gets as little monetary support as possible. Worse are the women who condone this nonsense.

Oh, here is a neat link I found describing how "useless biomass" experiences pain in the womb. Apparently, their nervous systems are MORE acute than our own--which can be very inconvenient when you are having your brains sucked out of your neck.

Remember when reading this collection of quotes from medical abstracts to only take the ones from independent science journals seriously--not the ones from those backwards Christian groups, who are obviously delusional and just plain mean.

www.thirdage.com...^0%40.ef21b9a/66

MrNice, do you support the killing of the innocent people in Iraq brought about by coalition bombs, and guns? I am not addressing the terrorist or insurgent here, for starters, I am addressing the innocent lives who for example found themselves in the unfortunate area of the restaurant bombed just before the start of the war, including the unborn children whose lives were snuffed out with your approval. The same unborn children you are advocating here has a right to life.

Sorry GrndLkNatv but the state has the right to stop certain actions. Freedom != Anarchy. We can stop you from committing murder, we can stop you from jumping off a building

We cannot stop the state from committing murder, and that state is a reflection of you. I suppose you also support the death penalty�murder of another human being. For all you know the adult condemned to die by the state could very well be the foetus that a woman was forced to carry.

I am at a loss to understand why those who claim the high moral ground have overwhelmingly supported a president who makes no bones about telling you he will kill others.

There is no valid reason for optional abortion.

I don't care what your problem is, unless it's rape or incest, you really don't get a free pass in my book.

Take responcibility for your own actions people. It is not a complicated concept. Can't care for it? Find someone else.

We need to re-invest in the adoption avenue.

If you get raped, I am truely sorry, but that changes my opinion not one iota.

Incest, same thing. Sorry, but no cigar.

Originally posted by smokenmirrorsit is Gay marriage, the homosexual agenda, the second amendment,

That second amendment is your gun law am I correct?

Baffling, truly baffling the demand of right to life and the demand to the right to own a weapon to take life away.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Baffling, truly baffling the demand of right to life and the demand to the right to own a weapon to take life away.

There is a serious difference between protecting life and taking life.

Guns and abortion are in line because we approve the former and disapprove the latter to protect life.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
[I am sorry but that is an excuse to justify your on again, off again moral stance. it does not adequately explain why you would endorse the killing of any one foetus over another.. What gives you the right to decide that one deserves to live and the other does not?

I don't feel uncomfortable about my stance at all. I'm trying to balance morality with realism so I can live in this world and not in an extremist Disneyland. I believe that troops had to die in WWII so we could stop the Nazis. I believe not one soldier had to die for this useless Iraqi war. The Nazis were an emergency. Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass catastrophe were not. My preference--that nobody has to die.

Unwanted pregnancy is not an emergency justifying abortion. If a mother is going to die if she does not have an abortion, we have a few choices. We could let the baby & the mother die. We could save the mother & abort the fetus. If the fetus was viable enough to be delivered alive & that delivery would result in the mother's death, that is a more complex situation.

My own parents were not married at the time I was born, and my mother was unwed, poor, and filled with great ambition. I love my mom, but if abortion was a viable & accepted practice back then, I'd probably be sticky pink biomass on the wrong side of a metal scraper. But her & my dad got married & toughed it out. It was far from easy. But they managed, and my mom got her science degree anyhow. I could say that I was "lucky" & "fated" to be allowed to live, while other women in my mother's situation were doing the coathanger-tango. I could say that it is just a piece of luck on my part in a cold, godless, random universe. But I know better. What right do I have to say it was ok for me to live & millions of potential lives to die?

And I'm totally for birth control & sex ed. That's another that the Pro-Lifers typically screw up on--as well as women's issues in general. I know conservatives want to be the fetus's friend, but alienating women with dogma only condemns more fetuses to die--I wish they could see that.

Originally posted by MrNice
By the way, nations have morals that guide their lawmaking. Thank goodness that GW is going to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices and we�ll have rid ourselves of this evil, vile, practice.

For those of you who support abortion I suggest you go hold a small child in your arms and then try to imagine crushing it�s head. If you can do that without being horrified and disgusted I don�t want you in my country.

Not so fast, chief. Even if Bush choses a pro-life judge, he'll never get out of the Senate. Bush will have no choice but to nominate a moderate who won't outlaw abortion.

This all in a country that still legally executes people... hmm

Originally posted by rachlls

Originally posted by dawnstar
Hey, Bush's partial birth ban would have had more support and more than likely wouldn't have been considered unconstitutional if they had just put in provisions that would have ensured that it wouldn't have been denied to women who genuinely needed it to prevent death or servere health problems....

quote]


Just a question, but do you know what is involved in a partial birth abortion?

A woman begins to give birth to a live baby. Feet first. All but the head. (yes all but the head) The rest of the proceedure is rather gruesome and very painful for the babynot to mention very disturbing, so I will not go into it. My point is if a woman can give birth to a baby this far, surely she can finish the birth. If her life is in danger she can have an emergency c section. Babies can live outside the woumb after the 3rd trimester. This is proven. Choosing to have labor induced so one can kill the life inside because you don't want it is murder. plain and simple. Sorry, I just cant buy the whole life in danger thing.

Just a question.....are you willing to be the one that walks up to the two or three kids that the women has already brought into the world...who are depending on her to earn the money, buy the food, cook and clean, and change their dirty diapers and snotty noses.....and explain to them that gee, I was wrong I guess, and well, your mom was denied the proceedure and well, we didn't believe it was possible but it endangered her life. So, who is taking care of you now, because they now have another to care for...

Still no comment on the c-section bit.....
but well, what if someone becomes pregnant, and well, suddenly it is found that for some strange quirk, she isn't dialating enough....and yet, well, I know a person who just can't be put under.....it will kill them.

So, you give the unborn all these rights...live, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and well, it comes into the world as a girl.....are you gonna then take that right away when she becomes old enough to bear children. Since, well, it seems that women ARE THE ONLY ONES IN THIS COUNTRY that can have a surgical proceedure forced on them.....everyone else is covered by the "patient's bill of rights!"

[edit on 3-11-2004 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Take responcibility for your own actions people. It is not a complicated concept. Can't care for it? Find someone else.

.

So how do you force people to be responcible? You can want them to be all you want but what do you do if people wont?

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
There is a serious difference between protecting life and taking life.

Guns and abortion are in line because we approve the former and disapprove the latter to protect life.

I am sure that first position is exactly the same the criminals use in their argument to keep the gun law, otherwise if anyone came out and stated it was necessary to have guns to kill it wouldn't go over very well, would it? One the latter...birth them then shoot them. Seems a sound argument to me.

Originally posted by dawnstar
Just a question.....are you willing to be the one that walks up to the two or three kids that the women has already brought into the world...who are depending on her to earn the money, buy the food, cook and clean, and change their dirty diapers and snotty noses.....and explain to them that gee, I was wrong I guess, and well, your mom was denied the proceedure and well, we didn't believe it was possible but it endangered her life. So, who is taking care of you now, because they now have another to care for...

Still no comment on the c-section bit.....
but well, what if someone becomes pregnant, and well, suddenly it is found that for some strange quirk, she isn't dialating enough....and yet, well, I know a person who just can't be put under.....it will kill them.

So, you give the unborn all these rights...live, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and well, it comes into the world as a girl.....are you gonna then take that right away when she becomes old enough to bear children. Since, well, it seems that women ARE THE ONLY ONES IN THIS COUNTRY that can have a surgical proceedure forced on them.....everyone else is covered by the "patient's bill of rights!"

[edit on 3-11-2004 by dawnstar]

1. Abortion where a mother's life is concerned is a special ethical case. If we can stop the bulk of the "I just don't want to have a baby right now, I want to go to the prom" abortions, then we've made progress.

2. As far as the case with the woman who refused to have a c-section, regardless of it endangering the life of her baby...if she is found to be genuinely mentally ill/retarded, then I don't think she should be found responsible for refusing. But I believe the c-section should be performed to save the life of the baby--remember we're not talking about a fetus anymore in this case, we're talking about a baby, ready to "pop out" and start living--there is no way that refusing to have a procedure to save that child's life is not murder.

3. I agree about how rotten it feels to be the only gender where a surgical procedure on their body is legislated--if it makes you feel any better, I believe there should be a law where rapists should be castrated.

Do a search on "unnecessary c-sections"....sorry, I disagree....
when thay start sterilizing the men for running off and failing to support the children they bring into the world, well, I might reconsider.
But, if you ask me, Bush is going in the opposite direction on that....he believes that outsourcing is good for our economy and that well, if we don't want to work for low wages, they'll let the immigrants in to do it....thus making it harder for the men to support the children they bring in. And, then just to drive the nail into the coffin, hey, pull the security net on them....after all, well, if they couldn't afford the kids, they shouldn't have had them!

Then when there's a bunch of kids begging on the streets, he'll have the bright idea to replace the immigrants with them...

IF the life of the unborn is to be protected and revered...well, it's life should be equally protected and revered after it is born...that means making sure if had access to medical care if it gets sick, food, shelter, heat, ect. ect....
Bush will just tell them to take a prozac!

[edit on 3-11-2004 by dawnstar]

You want to ban abortion, because it is immoral? Is it immoral then to kill entire families in other foriegn countries with supreme military technology in terms of "terrorism," or "the war on drugs."How bout destroying entire species and habitats of animals and plants?

If someone raped my girlfriend, sister, mother, grandmother, aunt, cousin, bla, bla and they get pregnant you people want them to carry that child to it's birth? You people are seriously deluded. Can you say "A" BUTTON. Cause it's gonna get pressed. Some people don't like your religious fundamentals pressed upon them. And until you can figure out that the church just wants your money and support you will remain clueless.

You preach pro-life, and then send out religious zealots to bomb abortion clinics, and murder the doctors, and nurses that perform those services in cold blood and then want to tell everyone how it is so "morally wrong," all the while created an underground railroad type of thing to keep the perpetrator out of the hands of the law Ridiculous mentality of some of these people makes people turn off to the cause of anti-abortion more than the thought of killing an unborn child. Until you pro-lifers can get it right and embrace everything on this planet as a life form with rights, don't preach to us about saving lives.

PRO-CHOICE=

Having recently reviewed Roe vs Wade one portion of the descision stands out to me.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

To me this is saying that when Man's knowledge reaches a point in development to determine when life begins, this question should be answered. It simply had not reached that point in 1973. I beleive answering this question is fundamental in the abortion issue.

Of medicine, philosophy, and theology, I beleive only science should influence the descision. It is the only one of the three that is objective and not subjective. The Justices should not allow personal feelings or religious beliefs to interfere with the objective study of this question.

Originally posted by Cassie Clay


1. Abortion where a mother's life is concerned is a special ethical case. If we can stop the bulk of the "I just don't want to have a baby right now, I want to go to the prom" abortions, then we've made progress.

It seems you�re also making the assumption that by outlawing abortion you have forced people to be responsible, but that won�t always be the case.

What happens when this 17 year old still goes to prom while (now forced to be) pregnant and partakes in drinking and drug uses, and continues this drinking and drug use the entire pregnancy.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by Agitator]

Originally posted by Agitator


What happens when this 17 year old still goes to prom while (now forced to be) pregnant and partakes in drinking and drug uses, and continues this drinking and drug use the entire pregnancy.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by Agitator]

I dunno...what if I decided to go out and smack that co-worker I don't like upside the head for being a "meanie" or steal that cd I can't afford because I desperately want it but can't afford it right now or suddenly decided to not pay the phone company? I'd be an idiot who did idiotic, destructive things & I'd probably have to answer for it.