Abortion stances

[faith]

Quote by: Ken Carman I am no one's doctor or medical expert. But I have the same problem with that that I have with back alley abortions. I feel if abortion is to be safe and legal it should be handled by those who are best able to do it. Should it be private? Yes, but not private to the point of making it any more dangerous of a procedure.

i know that i mean people should mind thier own buisness,it must be a hard decision to make without having to think what everyone else is thinking of you.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dalton There is zero family support, no one in her family has ever been on welfare, how would she work and support a child? Waitressing, a low-level factory job, a dead-end office job? Put the child in day care, at a minimum of $125 a week? What the hell would you do?

Put the child up for adoption, like any *sane* person does.

[prettyredhead]

Lets just have 1 milllion more people born every week and soon we will all be living in dire poverty, without food, slums. Abandoned children roaming the streets.
We are striving to become third world. Look at Africa, Asia, where abortions are still illegal. People will continue to screw when it suits them. Have since Adam and Eve.
Responsiblilty is in the eyes of the beholder. And irresponsible people will always exists, and the more sensible of the lot will support them. Works fine, it isnt broke so dont fix it. Blame your govt. for the poverty that you claim comes from irresponsible people and only those who are down and out.
We cannot have that many people born every week and not expect eventually, the bottom will drop out of our resources needed to support life here on earth. In America, already it is becoming scarce to find a home and land at a fair price. We must have abortion legal if only for population control.
Lawmakers have seen this, why cant you>? :rolleyes:

[Dalton]

I know a couple of very "sane" women who did precisely that. They gave up their infants for adoption. They are not now very high-functioning. Give birth to a baby, we'll talk.

[Dalton]

When does the government pay for an abortion? I can only assume when the woman in question is on welfare. Since welfare barely exists any more, a topic for another time, there can't be all that many woman who qualify.
The question then becomes, only women with money should have access to an abortion?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Dalton The question then becomes, only women with money should have access to an abortion?

No, it should be available for all. The question is, of course, who pays for the procedure? I understand that in many cases women without money are just that. But just like there are Pro-Life organizations that help those choose birth, financially, I believe there can be Pro-Choice organizations that could offer help so "choice" really is an option. It also eliminates one of the things that infuriate people who otherwise support the right to choose. Would I ban government support? No, I just think it's a bad idea that opens a rather rot filled can of worms.

Planned Parenthood is another example. I have dealt with them in the past. They are a fine organization that made a very bad choice years after I no longer needed their services; to get involved with providing abortions. The concept of the organization should be, as those who helped me back then said, provide birth control and birth options first and then if someone chooses abortion provide information about where.

Once again, I understand why they did, but that can of worms is even more rot filled. It has tainted the whole organization and that's unfortunate.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Ken Carman Quote by: mr.perfecto They died in the back alleyways were murders belong. Frankly, we should be considering how to get other murderers to met similar fates. Ah. "compassionate conservativism" at it's best! And the compassion continues as made evident by this article. :eek: P.S- If the Religious Right really was so concerned about the fetus then sentiments like Mr. Perfecto's might be less prevalent. Never guess what else "dies" in back alley abortions. If we really are to consider the fetus the same, or better, than the born then perhaps we can do better than..."They died in the back alleyways where murders (murderers?) belong."

So, some lady kills her unborn child and I'm uncompassionate because of...what?

Gee, the poor murderer. Really. I hear about people commiting inhuman acts and then suffering after the fact and I think "hilarious!" No one cries when a child-molesting priest gets struck by a car shortly after commiting tthe heinous act.

And please don't refer to the chop shop operators as "doctors." Any real doctor would be appalled.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: mr.perfecto So, some lady kills her unborn child and I'm uncompassionate because of...what? Gee, the poor murderer. Really. I hear about people commiting inhuman acts and then suffering after the fact and I think "hilarious!" No one cries when a child-molesting priest gets struck by a car shortly after commiting tthe heinous act. And please don't refer to the chop shop operators as "doctors." Any real doctor would be appalled.

"Real doctors" as defined by you. I know plenty of doctors who aren't appalled. Chop shop? Right. No, the chop shop was in the alley. Apparently you like and prefer chop shops.

"No one cries when a child-molesting priest gets struck by a car shortly after commiting tthe heinous act."

Would I cry? Depends upon the doctor, the specific situation... One doesn't make the other "good," although for some it's for the better... for them and society.

"poor murderer"

In the situation we are discussing that is neither my definition of "murderer" or the states definition. Should it be? That is what we are debating. You have jumped from arguing that it should be to using it as if it were fact. It is not. Murder is a legal term.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Ken Carman "Real doctors" as defined by you. I know plenty of doctors who aren't appalled. Chop shop? Right. No, the chop shop was in the alley. Apparently you like and prefer chop shops. "No one cries when a child-molesting priest gets struck by a car shortly after commiting tthe heinous act." Would I cry? Depends upon the doctor, the specific situation... One doesn't make the other "good," although for some it's for the better... for them and society. "poor murderer" In the situation we are discussing that is neither my definition of "murderer" or the states definition. Should it be? That is what we are debating. You have jumped from arguing that it should be to using it as if it were fact. It is not. Murder is a legal term.

Typical leftist double-speak.

murder: n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Now, the question is, which law? Considering the totaliarian states which craft the laws so that any number of immoral acts are legal, moral law must supercede any other law. Murder has a legal definition, but that is only one component of what it is.

The arguement that abortion is murder is not an attempt to change the definition of murder because murder is morally wrong whether the state recognizes it as such or not. Whether abortion is legal or not, the definition of murder does not change. The legal and the moral opinions of abortion are not in accordance with each other. Morality not being subject to a majority vote, it should be obvious which should be changed.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Typical leftist double-speak. murder: n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Now, the question is, which law? Considering the totaliarian states which craft the laws so that any number of immoral acts are legal, moral law must supercede any other law. Murder has a legal definition, but that is only one component of what it is. The arguement that abortion is murder is not an attempt to change the definition of murder because murder is morally wrong whether the state recognizes it as such or not. Whether abortion is legal or not, the definition of murder does not change. The legal and the moral opinions of abortion are not in accordance with each other. Morality not being subject to a majority vote, it should be obvious which should be changed.

Odd...

You refer to it as "typical leftist double-speak" but the definition you use refers to "unlawful," then you attempt to double -speak your way out of it. Perhaps we just have a disagreement about the nature of the country we live in and how important it is to disregard what is legal vs what we believe is moral or immoral. Yes, at times one must consider one's morals before law, or lack of law in this case. But I don't believe any time our morals conflict with the law that we should ignore law and act on our morals. It's a matter of degree. For instance, let's say I'm about to get stopped by the cops and the very act of stopping me, an ordinary citizen on my way to the Mall, outrages me. So, reacting on my own odd sense of morals, I refuse to stop. They chase me during which people get hurt or even killed. This scenario could be replayed and altered to where the cop is shot because I felt he was abusing his power over me. Does such an absolute right to what I might believe to be "moral law" supercede obeying the law as it exists? No, I don't think so.

BTW, to me "moral law" is your accepted construct, not mine. "Moral law" as legally defined by whom? Your church? Your own sense of right or wrong? Some laws are more moral than others, but that is a seperate, more personal issue. There comes a time when we must stand on our morals rather than what is or is not legal. But that does not turn what is or is not legal into "moral law," unless you're suggesting we should live in a theocracy. I don't agree. but it seems many people are of that opinion.

Murder has a legal definition, but that is only one component of what it is.

And your point being... Hmm, pick anything and say, for example, "The orange is orange in color," and I would say, "Yes, that is only one component of what it is." I would say, for the purposes of the discussion that it is going on legality is the most important component. My last comments will bounce back to this part of the discussion.

The arguement that abortion is murder is not an attempt to change the definition of murder because murder is morally wrong whether the state recognizes it as such or not

First of all, if you had actually offered and argument about abortion being murder it would be phrased, "I believe it is murder (or "should be murder") because..." That's an argument. You simply stated that it IS murder. Perhaps you skipped over that. Then you were assuming others would make the connection? ...not the best way to communicate but perhaps I'm "nit-picking." Secondly, the reasoning here, if I am wrong about what I just typed, is convoluted at best. The only thing I can assume, if that is the case, is that any citizen can declare anything they wish to be murder despite legal considerations. If such a "murder" is in progress then a citizen should defend the victim. I think the human race would go extinct rather fast under that kind of "rule of law," or "morals over law," however you wish to phrase it.

The legal and the moral opinions of abortion are not in accordance with each other. Morality not being subject to a majority vote, it should be obvious which should be changed.

If I am reading this right, your opinion is that if a small, maybe even crazed minority, believes something should be considered immoral and should be illegal; their sense of "moral law" should be replace what the majority of a society has decided? That's fine. as long as it's your opinion. I'll bet you'd fight like hell if it wasn't. Now, of course, such minorities have, to a certain extent, a right to petition in various ways for their point of view. If the wish to revolt, that is a tradition that of course has consequences but sometimes should be followed. But otherwise, IMO, you have made my case for me. Any society set up to make whatever individuals decide is "moral law" more important than legality would be so unstable total anarchy would be the first result. Neither would I wish to live in a society where such things were decided by churches or synagogues, priest, minister or rabbi. Bad idea.

P.S.- During the 60's I remember Conservatives like myself (Yes, I was.) arguing the same points I am making about the hippies and more violent protests that involved pouring blood over records, breaking into offices... even robbing banks, killing cops... I was, and still am, just as disgusted by their sense of what you call "moral law." Odd how sides shift but the arguments remain the same. Life is such a paradoxical pendulum.

[Morgan_Freeman]

So Mr. Carman, you don't think that killing another human is wrong?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So Mr. Carman, you don't think that killing another human is wrong?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no... mostly somewhere inbetween. Wars certainly contribute to more of their fair share of killing other human beings, but sometimes we must. That option is chosen far too often, I believe. A man invades my house and I kill him before he kills me. Wrong? Don't think so. A person in the dark snickers, threatens me and then looks like he's about to stab me. I kill him. I find out he was a friend I didn't recognize that was joking and holding a banana. Wrong? Sort of, sort of not. Understandable if all is as I have said. We have been making decisions about who lives and who dies since humanity has been able to make such decisions

I admire those who believe we should never make such decisions, but feel the stance is unrealistic. I am no Buddist, Hindu or anything of that nature. I respect those who try to live the path of least killing, death. Once again... I feel it's unrealistic. I do find it strange that it is the non-Christian faiths that seem to come closer to this ideal.

Note: even if I feel something is wrong doesn't mean I feel it should be banned, made illegal or anything like that. Government tries to micro-manage the life of the individual too much as it is. I choose choice over heavy handed government most of the time when it comes to the individual. I have less toleration for corporations or churches. Institutions as a group should be given less leeway for they too can oppress, scam and hurt the individual. The list of what I would allow, or not, is a lot shorter. But, I don't rule the universe, so all this is opinion, obviously.

[Morgan_Freeman]

You consider outlawing *murder* to be micromanaging????

Please tell me you are an anarchist. At least then you won't be a hyporcrite.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Ken Carman Odd... You refer to it as "typical leftist double-speak" but the definition you use refers to "unlawful," then you attempt to double -speak your way out of it.

It is a well know fact that legal definitions don't have to be based on the shared meaning of a word. Even going beyond that, changing the word used to describe something does not change the thing itself. Congress can pass a law stating that the color orange shall now be known as "Blended Red Pigmentation # 3" if it wants to. But if it does, the description of an orange also changes. You can not call two instances of the exact same thing by different names.

Perhaps we just have a disagreement about the nature of the country we live in and how important it is to disregard what is legal vs what we believe is moral or immoral. Yes, at times one must consider one's morals before law, or lack of law in this case. But I don't believe any time our morals conflict with the law that we should ignore law and act on our morals. It's a matter of degree. For instance, let's say I'm about to get stopped by the cops and the very act of stopping me, an ordinary citizen on my way to the Mall, outrages me. So, reacting on my own odd sense of morals, I refuse to stop. They chase me during which people get hurt or even killed. This scenario could be replayed and altered to where the cop is shot because I felt he was abusing his power over me. Does such an absolute right to what I might believe to be "moral law" supercede obeying the law as it exists? No, I don't think so.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. When have I suggested that anyone do anything illegal? If you really believe the law was immoral then you have a right to use non-violent means to convince people to change the law. If you did shoot the officer or cause a number of people to be killed, you would wrong. It is exactly such occurences that the law is intended to suppress. "I want, I want, I want" is not a moral arguement, its a little child pouting. You can not start a moral arguement by disreguarding the rights of other people.

BTW, to me "moral law" is your accepted construct, not mine. "Moral law" as legally defined by whom? Your church? Your own sense of right or wrong? Some laws are more moral than others, but that is a seperate, more personal issue. There comes a time when we must stand on our morals rather than what is or is not legal. But that does not turn what is or is not legal into "moral law," unless you're suggesting we should live in a theocracy. I don't agree. but it seems many people are of that opinion.

Well, moral law as legally defined by God.

I think there is some confusion between us concerning the word "law." We I use the term moral law, I'm not using it in the same sense I would if I were talking about "tax law" or "criminal law," but to describe a universal truth that a man might understand, but did not create. Sort of like "the Laws of Physics."

And, just to clear up something, there is a difference between what will get you sent to hell and what will just make your neighbors mad at you. I have never suggested that the two are the same or that if I dislike your actions you are hellbound. As for what moral law is, just the basic stuff every religion has to teach:
'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' etc.

Murder has a legal definition, but that is only one component of what it is. And your point being... Hmm, pick anything and say, for example, "The orange is orange in color," and I would say, "Yes, that is only one component of what it is." I would say, for the purposes of the discussion that it is going on legality is the most important component.

Legality is the least important part of the discussion. If it were, what would we be discussing? You would say "It's legal, get over it," and I would say, "Your right. Let's drop it." We are discussing an issue of morality. Stalin legally murder millions of people, are saying that his actions are right or wrong? To make a statement that something is right or wrong is to make a moral judgement. Murder, as act defined by moral law is under the jurisdiction of the authority that instituted the law. Just as man can not change the laws of physics, he can change the moral law.

My last comments will bounce back to this part of the discussion. The arguement that abortion is murder is not an attempt to change the definition of murder because murder is morally wrong whether the state recognizes it as such or not First of all, if you had actually offered and argument about abortion being murder it would be phrased, "I believe it is murder (or "should be murder") because..." That's an argument. You simply stated that it IS murder. Perhaps you skipped over that. Then you were assuming others would make the connection? ...not the best way to communicate but perhaps I'm "nit-picking." Secondly, the reasoning here, if I am wrong about what I just typed, is convoluted at best. The only thing I can assume, if that is the case, is that any citizen can declare anything they wish to be murder despite legal considerations. If such a "murder" is in progress then a citizen should defend the victim. I think the human race would go extinct rather fast under that kind of "rule of law," or "morals over law," however you wish to phrase it.

Really, this shouldn't be necessary, but here goes. Every human being ever born went through the pretty much the same stages of life. What stage of life a person is at has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a human being or not. By any other logic we could call the forced killing of the elderly one thing, of the middle aged something else, teens another thing, etc.

Once you make the decision that the actions of the person in question are not what justifies killing them, but where they are at or what stage of life they are in, you, logically, arrive at the conclusion that any type of killing is permissable.

The legal and the moral opinions of abortion are not in accordance with each other. Morality not being subject to a majority vote, it should be obvious which should be changed. If I am reading this right, your opinion is that if a small, maybe even crazed minority, believes something should be considered immoral and should be illegal; their sense of "moral law" should be replace what the majority of a society has decided? That's fine. as long as it's your opinion. I'll bet you'd fight like hell if it wasn't. Now, of course, such minorities have, to a certain extent, a right to petition in various ways for their point of view. If the wish to revolt, that is a tradition that of course has consequences but sometimes should be followed. But otherwise, IMO, you have made my case for me. Any society set up to make whatever individuals decide is "moral law" more important than legality would be so unstable total anarchy would be the first result. Neither would I wish to live in a society where such things were decided by churches or synagogues, priest, minister or rabbi. Bad idea.

Considering that a law outlawing abortion won't be passed until a decisive majority of Americans consider it immoral, your point about the crazed minority flew over my head.

When a nation's laws, the actions of its leaders, and the beliefs of its people are not in accordance with the moral law, it is on a very short road to devastation. A peaceful society is not possible without morality.

P.S.- During the 60's I remember Conservatives like myself (Yes, I was.) arguing the same points I am making about the hippies and more violent protests that involved pouring blood over records, breaking into offices... even robbing banks, killing cops... I was, and still am, just as disgusted by their sense of what you call "moral law." Odd how sides shift but the arguments remain the same. Life is such a paradoxical pendulum.

How is it that you have come to group me with them? The odd thing is that I would place the types of people you describe in the "abortion is every woman's right" group.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You consider outlawing *murder* to be micromanaging???? Please tell me you are an anarchist. At least then you won't be a hyporcrite.

anarchist

No, I'd say I'm more of a Libertarian when it comes to individual rights. (Please note, I said "more of a" not "a Libertarian.")

*murder* to be micromanaging????

All things are interconnected, but you're connecting two things here that are lot less connected than others. First of all you're claiming I believe some things should be considered "murder" when I may not, at least not legally. If you want we can get to all the specifics, although I wouldn't recommend it... the thread would be tied up in knots by us that way. As I explained in my post what is murder, and what isn't, is not black and white, as in the the example I gave of killing a guy threatening me with a banana. This is why, legally, we have seperate categories... unjustifiable homicide, manslaughter... These distinctions are proper and just, not that I'd ever say they're used that way by either over-zealous prosecutors or those on the defense side.

The rant about micro-managing was meant to be an overview of how I believe society should be set up, not specifically "murder" related. But when it comes to murder sometimes, yes... banning and/or prosecuting everything that either some majority of society or some minority believes should be considered murder would be micro-managing. Some consider war "murder," no matter how just the cause and how defensive the reaction. Some consider self defense the same way. Some consider killing animals for food a form of murder. I could go on, but point made. If society were set up so that everything that everyone considers murdered was illegal and prosecuted then we might as well execute ourselves and get it all over with. WAIT! I FORGOT! Some consider that murder too! Damn paradoxes, and I was so looking forward to sticking my fingers in the wall socket...

[Sandy]

Abortions are not murder and are legal in 80% of the nations on this planet.

If you are all pro-life, I guarantee that nobody will be dragging your sorry asses to an abortion clinic if your woman is found to be carrying an unwanted fetus.

It is your choice, not mine whether you carry to term or whether you head for the nearest doctor and have an abortion. I only ask that you pay for the damn thing yourself.

[castille]

I'm pro-death and anti-choice, so I'm a bit torn over whether I should support or reject abortion.

[Morgan_Freeman]

So let me ask you all this:

For those of you who think it should be illegal to willfully kill another human being. For clarification in this nightmare debate, I suppose I have to specify that the human has already been born. An ambulatory, breathing human being. I'm going to assume that most of you at least think *that* should be illegal.

Why should it be illegal?

If you can justify killing an unborn child merely because the child is "inconvenient", why can't you justify killing literally anyone? Poor people who, as some posters here have said, are "leeching off society", for instance. Why not abort them?

[castille]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman If you can justify killing an unborn child merely because the child is "inconvenient", why can't you justify killing literally anyone? Poor people who, as some posters here have said, are "leeching off society", for instance. Why not abort them?

Because the welfare bums would fight back with beer bottles grenades and heroine needles.

[Morgan_Freeman]

There you go.

Babies get killed because they are defenseless and no one is standing up for them.