‘extreme conservatives’

[GW8345]

That makes no sense. The unborn is just as innocent in the case of rape or incest or health issues. George Will has written about his son, David (IIRC) any number of times. David has Downs Syndrome and, in your view, his life is worth less. Will argues quite the opposite.

You disqualify your view with that sort of case by case discrimination. Either abortion is murder or it is not. Rape doesn't change that. Incest doesn't change that. Birth defect doesn't change that.

Please point out where I said a baby with Down Syndrome is a worthless life.

Once again you can not see past your own biased opinion and are adding information/details when none are provided in order to support your own argument.

 

[Gilligan]

Sleeeeeeazy Conservatives is what they are called.

 

[Larry Gude]

Please point out where I said a baby with Down Syndrome is a worthless life.

Once again you can not see past your own biased opinion and are adding information/details when none are provided in order to support your own argument.

If I point it it, will you actually read what I wrote? Or, are you gonna stick with your own bias?

I wrote 'worth (space) less'. Not worthless.

By definition, if you think abortion in the case of incest, rape and 'in case the child is a vegetable' you are declaring you think those infants worth...less. Or, do you have a different rationale than relative value of those lives making it ok to toss out?

 

[b23hqb]

I agree with you that it's murder. I disagree with you that murder is ok just because that's more convenient for the mother.

She made her "choice" when she took the action that risked pregnancy. She had control over "her" body at that point. When another body became involved, it was no longer her decision.

I agree. I was contemplating LG's response to my statement yesterday, but could not come up with wording to match what I wanted to express.

You stated it very well. It is the woman's body, but with another being involved, and most agree it is murder, then that just cannot be tolerated.

So since 1973, there has been about 56,000,000 unprosecuted murders.

So nice for the moral fabric of any society.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree with you that it's murder. I disagree with you that murder is ok just because that's more convenient for the mother.

She made her "choice" when she took the action that risked pregnancy. She had control over "her" body at that point. When another body became involved, it was no longer her decision.

How about rape? Incest? Birth defect?

 

[Merlin99]

I agree. I was contemplating LG's response to my statement yesterday, but could not come up with wording to match what I wanted to express.

You stated it very well. It is the woman's body, but with another being involved, and most agree it is murder, then that just cannot be tolerated.

So since 1973, there has been about 56,000,000 unprosecuted murders.

So nice for the moral fabric of any society.

Who's this "most", you can't even get people to agree when life begins.

 

[b23hqb]

Who's this "most", you can't even get people to agree when life begins.

I stand corrected. Should have used the word "many".

 

[GW8345]

If I point it it, will you actually read what I wrote? Or, are you gonna stick with your own bias?

I wrote 'worth (space) less'. Not worthless.

By definition, if you think abortion in the case of incest, rape and 'in case the child is a vegetable' you are declaring you think those infants worth...less. Or, do you have a different rationale than relative value of those lives making it ok to toss out?

Okay, please point out where I said that a child's life is worth......less just because it was conceived from rape/incest, or would be a vegetable. I said I support a mother's decision to abort the child because she did not have a choice in the matter. As for the child being a vegetable, again, that is the mother's choice to abort because the child would not have any quality of life and it may be an undue burden on the family.

What I am against is abortion being used as a form of birth control, if the woman chose to have sex then she should have to deal with the consequences of her choice. Don't want to have a child, don't open your legs or use some form of contraception, but abortion should not be a form of birth control.

 

[Lurk]

Who's this "most", you can't even get people to agree when life begins.

I guess if so many people believe abortion should not be available, the absence of consensus on when life begins becomes moot. Only 1 in 4 want abortions if the baby is alive or not.

Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, please point out where I said that a child's life is worth......less just because it was conceived from rape/incest, or would be a vegetable.

Oh, come on! I realize this isn't a comfortable topic but, if you oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the murder of an innocent life, which it is, but, it's OK for rape and incest, you are, in fact, saying, in those cases, murder is OK, by definition, lives worth a lower value, ie, Ok to abort.

You're not going to find anyone who thinks abortion is more horrific than I do. I used to be totally against it. However, over time, my thoughts kept coming back to land of the free, home of the brave and the individual rights of our society. In a free society, if that society says to a woman 'you MUST bear this child' against her will, based on whatever set of arguments we like, religious, fairness, the law, as we read it, etc, then, everything after that, ANY choice is subjective to the society. What we eat, what we drink, what we read, say, hell, think.

I am ALL for public service airing of the facts, the health risks, promotion of adoption, contraception and abstinence; all the facts, all the truths, all the opinions. And then, it comes down to, MUST come down to...her choice.

That the debate suffers from pro abortion bias does not make the case for public authority over a woman's body any more reasonable.

I would argue that the truly anti abortion movement should promote the case by saying "We don't want your crack babies anyway and anyone who would choose to murder their infant has no business being a mom either."

People, free people, reject being told what to do and the more personal it is, the more they reject it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Something like 95% of all abortions are for the convenience of the mother. A couple percent is for the life saving (medically) of the mother. The last couple percent is for rape and non-adult non-consensual incest.

Let's handle this from a worst-to-least point of view. Not all problems can be solved 100% in one fell swoop.

So, I ask again; How about rape? Incest? Birth defect? That murder, too? Of course it is.

And, yeah, this issue can be 100% solved in one fell swoop; it's up to the woman. It's her choice.

 

[Larry Gude]

Who's this "most", you can't even get people to agree when life begins.

"Most" people, meaning folks who have had kids, have seen sonograms at 12 weeks know damn well that at that point, it's a child. A human being.

 

[GURPS]

I am ALL for public service airing of the facts, the health risks, promotion of adoption, contraception and abstinence; all the facts, all the truths, all the opinions. And then, it comes down to, MUST come down to...her choice.

then let progressives hold bake sales for crack baby abortion day, and use NO Federal / State / Local Funds .... nor insurance companies funding

it is then a choice between the mother and judgement in the after life
[and all personnel involved in the murder]

let them setup a separate insurance company for abortions ....


12 Bible Verses about
Those Who Hurt Children

 

[b23hqb]

Everybody knows my stance against abortion, regardless of the semantics of the topic. My stance is no more extreme than pro abortionists extreme stance.

So to get back to the OP - why am I, an anti-abortion, non supporter of homosexual "marriage" and related activities, just because of my Biblical beliefs considered AN EXTREMIST, while those on the other side of issues ARE NOT considered EXTREMISTS?

Let's just all call ourselves extremists for our belief systems, keep on believing what we believe.

So, to most of the media, and most of those that support the left (Christians and most conservatives already get this part) - If the label of extremist is good for one side, it fits the other side as well.

 

[GW8345]

Oh, come on! I realize this isn't a comfortable topic but, if you oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the murder of an innocent life, which it is, but, it's OK for rape and incest, you are, in fact, saying, in those cases, murder is OK, by definition, lives worth a lower value, ie, Ok to abort.

You're not going to find anyone who thinks abortion is more horrific than I do. I used to be totally against it. However, over time, my thoughts kept coming back to land of the free, home of the brave and the individual rights of our society. In a free society, if that society says to a woman 'you MUST bear this child' against her will, based on whatever set of arguments we like, religious, fairness, the law, as we read it, etc, then, everything after that, ANY choice is subjective to the society. What we eat, what we drink, what we read, say, hell, think.

I am ALL for public service airing of the facts, the health risks, promotion of adoption, contraception and abstinence; all the facts, all the truths, all the opinions. And then, it comes down to, MUST come down to...her choice.

That the debate suffers from pro abortion bias does not make the case for public authority over a woman's body any more reasonable.

I would argue that the truly anti abortion movement should promote the case by saying "We don't want your crack babies anyway and anyone who would choose to murder their infant has no business being a mom either."

People, free people, reject being told what to do and the more personal it is, the more they reject it.

And what about the rights of the child, when do they get the right to live?

Also, do you support the death penalty? Do you support our military when they go off to war?

I don't find this topic difficult to discuss, I think a woman does not have a right to end the life of a child she is carrying simply as a form of birth control.

The only reason why abortion should be legal is in the cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother or if the child will not have ANY quality of life. A woman made her choice when she decided to have unprotected sex, don't want a kid, use contraception, it's that simple.

It's called personal responsibility, which means taking responsibility for the choices you make.

 

[Larry Gude]

We agree it is murder (still). We apparently still disagree on whether murder should be a legally accepted option for convenience. I think that's a really bad reason. You seem to be ok with that as a reason. I am not OK with barbarism. I am just less OK with slavery.

Again, her choice was made when she willingly took action that has a potential consequence of pregnancy. After that she no longer has a choice, she has tacitly accepted a responsibility. In your view and that is the issue. How is your insistence that now you are in charge of her any different than Obamacare or telling you what size soda you may have?

Note the word "willingly" there. Rape is non-willing. Incest, generally speaking, is non-willing. Certainly we can agree that "life of the mother" exceptions are worthy of consideration. Certainly it is a reasonable compromise to at least consider pregnancies that were not obtained willingly as other exceptions. That would eliminate over 99% of all elective abortions.

So, again, how does any of that change the innocence of the infant? You are willing to compromise on an innocent life and all we're talking about is conditions. Correct?

Let's ban certain foods and eliminate 99% of overweight people. Let's eliminate alcohol and eliminate 99% of the problems that come with alcohol. Let's eliminate choice and just put the government in charge of everything. After all, once we elect them, we assume responsibility for what we chose, yes?

 

[Larry Gude]

And what about the rights of the child, when do they get the right to live? When the mother wants them. If I attack her and her baby dies, I have committed murder. If she chooses an abortion, she chose an abortion.

Also, do you support the death penalty? Not as we apply it in this country. Do you support our military when they go off to war? A lot more than George Bush ever did. If I chose to go to war, we would kill and destroy and WIN.

I don't find this topic difficult to discuss, I think a woman does not have a right to end the life of a child she is carrying simply as a form of birth control. Therein lies the disagreement.

The only reason why abortion should be legal is in the cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother or if the child will not have ANY quality of life. A woman made her choice when she decided to have unprotected sex, don't want a kid, use contraception, it's that simple.

It's called personal responsibility, which means taking responsibility for the choices you make.

Again, we're talking conditions; you're not OK with infanticide in these circumstances but you are in those. In both cases, the unborn as an INNOCENT life.

Think about what you are saying;

If a man takes control of a woman, rapes her, impregnates her, then, it is OK with you if an innocent life is snuffed out.

If a woman CHOOSES to have sex and becomes pregnant, then YOU want to control her and force her to bear it whether she likes it or not.

I don't object to your paternalism per se. I think it is better to promote choosing life. Where I object is the level of control part. It is incompatible with individual freedom and liberty and that sort of control over an adult citizen is, in my view, worse than the loss of that innocent, helpless but, undeveloped, unknowing life.

 

[Larry Gude]

How is facing the consequences of one's actions "slavery"?

How is being overweight by your own choice akin to being murdered?

You're really reaching, and I just don't think you see the effect on the murdered baby as being a bigger issue than the mother (and father)'s responsibility to their actions.

I'm not reaching. The debate, the disagreement, is over societal control over the individual. We're already seeing government seek to control what you ingest, seat belt laws, smoking, etc.

By YOUR values, a woman MUST have that baby. I don't disagree that that would be better, in my view but, I do not agree it is for you, for me, through government, to compel her to do so.

 

[Larry Gude]

So you're ok with Andrea Yates killing her kids? I'm going to assume you're not, so please explain to me the difference between her and a mother who aborts her children.

No and I am not 'ok' with abortion. I am just less Ok with the state compelling a woman to bear a child.

And don't stop at Andrea Yates. I'm pretty sure her old man was at least part of the problem.

There is tragedy in life. There just is. Some of the worst are unfit moms drugging and drinking through pregnancy and then raising that child, what's left of it, in, essentially, hell.

 

[GURPS]

By YOUR values, a woman MUST have that baby. I don't disagree that that would be better, in my view but, I do not agree it is for you, for me, through government, to compel her to do so.

adoption ?

I know she is still 'forced' to give birth ... instead of aborting at 12 weeks and keeping her bikini figure for a few more years