‘extreme conservatives’

[GW8345]

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?

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.

Once again you are trying to get people to defend THEIR beliefs using YOUR logic, which they can't do because they do not subscribe to YOUR logic.

I don't expect you to understand, agree, or even support my position and I will not try to define my position using your logic.

Now I asked you if you support the death penalty and our troops during the time of war, you still have not answered that question, so do you support the death penalty and our troops at war?

 

[Merlin99]

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.

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.

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.

You say that like its the only possible choice when it's factually not.

 

[Larry Gude]

Once again you are trying to get people to defend THEIR beliefs using YOUR logic, which they can't do because they do not subscribe to YOUR logic.

I don't expect you to understand, agree, or even support my position and I will not try to define my position using your logic.

Now I asked you if you support the death penalty and our troops during the time of war, you still have not answered that question, so do you support the death penalty and our troops at war?

The difference between my logic and what you think of as yours is that you consider what other people do, that has NOTHING to do with you, as an imposition on your values. If someone has a different faith than you, unless and until it requires you to conform, it has nothing to do with you. If someone likes a different football team than you, it has NOTHING to do with you unless and until it requires you to conform.

Gay marriage does not require you to be gay let alone marry someone of the same sex. You are free to dislike it, disagree with it and oppose it. You are free to do as you please right up to where it infringes on someone elses rights.

Abortion does not require you to get or condone abortion. You are free to dislike it, disagree with it and oppose it. You are free to do as you please right up to where it infringes on someone elses rights.

This nation was founded on freedom and liberty and that, by definition, means freedom to be different than you. It requires that others respect your right to your faith, your speech, your values and morals in how YOU live YOUR life. And you theirs.

Unless and until you come to grasp the difference between the law allowing someone the right to something you disagree with that does not infringe on your rights, on the one hand, and your personal freedom and liberty to choose to NOT do or engage in that behavior, it is pointless to discuss this with you.

I understand what you are thinking and why. For the longest time, I thought the Dallas Cowboys shouldn't be allowed to exist. Then, things began to change. I started to grasp the larger meaning of freedom and liberty and that they actually included, had to include, other people and what they liked, what they beloved in, what they cared about. As long as it didn't violate my rights. In fact, if they didn't have those same rights as me, I could not have mine.

And believe me, I understand the threat you feel. A Cowboy fan enjoying themselves at what I saw as my expense was very uncomfortable. But, again, when you turn 8 or so, your mind does expand.

Just be patient. You'll get there. Oh, and you won't have to become a Cowboy fan, so to speak.


FWIW; I don't support our death penalty as it is currently understood and applied; 25 years or so on death row.

I support our troops being allowed to do their job. Their job is to kill people and break things in service to our national interest. I think we have abused our troops and betrayed them horribly this past 12 years. They didn't join to serve Saudi Arabia's king or Afghan drug dealers.

 

[Larry Gude]

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

I think that would be great. Much preferable to abortion.

But, do you wanna make that a law?

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm still not clear on your distinction between Yates and a parent that aborts their child. [Edit] Maybe the more appropriate question here is, why does the government have a compelling case at the loss of those children's lives, but not the victims of abortion?

At the risk of, again, not getting an answer to that I'll tell you I'm also not clear on the lack of acceptance that a parent tacitly accepts responsibility for their actions when they engage in activity that could lead to a child. Why does the child need to suffer a death because the parents believe the consequences for their actions are inconvenient?

You don't see a distinction between this;

Andrea Yates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following the birth of their fourth son, Luke, Andrea became depressed. The media alleged that her condition was influenced by the extremist sermons of Michael Peter Woroniecki, the preacher who sold them their bus.[clarification needed] Her family was concerned by the way that she was so captivated by the minister’s words.[7]

On June 16, 1999, Rusty found Andrea shaking and chewing her fingers. The next day, she attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on pills. She was admitted to the hospital, and prescribed antidepressants. Soon after her release, she begged her husband to let her die as she held a knife up to her neck. Once again hospitalized, she was given a mixture of medications including Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug. Her condition improved immediately, and she was prescribed it on her release. After that, Rusty moved the family into a small house for the sake of her health. Andrea appeared temporarily to stabilize.[7] In July 1999, she succumbed to a nervous breakdown, which culminated in two suicide attempts and two psychiatric hospitalizations that summer. She was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis.[8]

Her first psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, testified that she urged the couple not to have more children, as it would "guarantee future psychotic depression". They conceived their fifth and final child approximately 7 weeks after her discharge.[9] She stopped taking the Haldol in March 2000 and gave birth to daughter Mary on November 30 of that year. She seemed to be coping well until the death of her father on March 12, 2001.[10]

She then stopped taking medication, mutilated herself, and read the Bible feverishly. She also stopped feeding her youngest child, Mary.[7] Yates became so incapacitated that she required immediate hospitalization. On April 1, 2001, she came under the care of Dr. Mohammed Saeed. She was treated and released. On May 3, 2001, she degenerated back into a "near catatonic" state and drew a bath in the middle of the day; she would later confess to police that she had planned to drown the children that day, but had decided against doing it then. She was hospitalized the next day after a scheduled doctor visit; her psychiatrist determined she was probably suicidal and had filled the tub to drown herself.[10][11]

Yates continued under Dr. Saeed's care until June 20, 2001, when Rusty left for work, leaving her alone to watch the children against Dr. Saeed's instructions to supervise her around the clock.[12] Rusty's mother, Dora Yates, had been scheduled by him to arrive an hour later to take over for her. In the space of that hour, Andrea drowned all five children.[13] She started with the three youngest boys, and after drowning them in her bathtub, laid them in her bed. She then drowned Mary, whom she left floating in the tub. Her oldest son, Noah, came in and asked what was wrong with Mary. He then ran, but she soon caught and drowned him. She then left him floating in the tub and laid Mary in her brother's arms. Afterwards, she called the police. Then she called Rusty, saying only "It's time" repeatedly.[7]

And this;

Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Really? Seriously?

 

[Larry Gude]

At the risk of, again, not getting an answer to that I'll tell you I'm also not clear on the lack of acceptance that a parent tacitly accepts responsibility for their actions when they engage in activity that could lead to a child. Why does the child need to suffer a death because the parents believe the consequences for their actions are inconvenient?

Because the alternative is the state forcing a woman to bear the child and, in a free society, that can't be.

We gonna force her to love the kid? Give it the best of care? Cherish the child? Nourish it? Wait until she snaps and drowns it and then call it the same thing?

This is a really simple concept; I think abortion is barbaric. In some illusionary perfect world, it would never happen. However, in the real world, especially in a free society, it is going to happen.

GW845 makes the point on a larger scale, though I am sure he didn't mean too; what of war? The vast majority of Japanese men, women and child that we killed in bombing Japan had nothing to do with attacking America. They lived in a society where they had no choice. But, war, sometimes, happens. We chose to destroy a lot of innocent people, including children, and, I'd imagine, a great many unborn as well, in order to do what we thought was right for our society. Their nation started it so, we justify it based on that, us or them. I'd rather it them than us. But, we took a lot of totally innocent lives in the process.

I think it is admirable that you don't like abortion. Neither do I. But, let's dispense with the 'every life is precious' non sense, OK? You guys are the ones that support abortion in the case of rape, incest or birth defect. It's still an innocent life. So, you can make excuses. All you have to do is take one more step and, especially in a free society, just accept a womans right to choose to abort her child. Doesn't mean you have to get one. Or perform one. And it doesn't mean she has to either.

 

[Larry Gude]

GW and this, you both take the position, it seems, correct me if I am wrong, that someone else having the right to choose to have an abortion violates your principals, correct?

Assume for the sake of argument that you are both Muslim. Would it violate my principles, as a Christian, your faith? How you choose to worship? Would I be correct to consider it an imposition on my principles and morals if you were allowed to worship Mohamed?

 

[SamSpade]

GW and this, you both take the position, it seems, correct me if I am wrong, that someone else having the right to choose to have an abortion violates your principals, correct?

If the supposition is that abortion is infanticide, then giving someone to "right to choose" infanticide without repercussions is sanctioning murder.

We "give" people the right to choose to steal or lie or murder - but if they DO it, there are consequences - such as imprisonment or worse. This is why I don't get the "choose" argument - creating a law that says it's against the law to steal - does it preserve or violate their right to steal?

Moreover, I don't get the idea that says, yeah it's murder but they should have the right to make that choice. Well we don't give that right to someone to infanticide AFTER a child is born, so why is it different prior to birth?

As you see, the argument hinges on whether or not it is murder.

 

[Larry Gude]

If the supposition is that abortion is infanticide, then giving someone to "right to choose" infanticide without repercussions is sanctioning murder.

We "give" people the right to choose to steal or lie or murder - but if they DO it, there are consequences - such as imprisonment or worse. This is why I don't get the "choose" argument - creating a law that says it's against the law to steal - does it preserve or violate their right to steal?

Moreover, I don't get the idea that says, yeah it's murder but they should have the right to make that choice. Well we don't give that right to someone to infanticide AFTER a child is born, so why is it different prior to birth?

As you see, the argument hinges on whether or not it is murder.

This is a simple debate. It IS the killing of the innocent and define that is you please; murder, manslaughter or birth control and it MUST be her choice in a free society.

We intellectualize the argument when it comes to the death penalty and war. We do the same with law regarding, say, home intrusion or public robbery. Texas damn near requires you to shoot your assailant and Maryland basically forbids you meaningful self defense.

:shrug:

 

[b23hqb]

LG has recently consumed this thread in his attempt to defend himself and line of thought.

IMHO, one cannot be sickened by abortion, as LG essentially stated earlier in this thread, yet stand steadfastly for the right of a pregnant woman to commit such.

How such a thought and belief process is reconciled within themselves, I know not.

Gotta stand for one thing or the other. But not both. If one stands for both, they stand for nothing.

Go for it.

 

[Merlin99]

Please explain.

A safe, legal, abortion. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not an option.

 

[Larry Gude]

My point is an abortion shouldn't be legal. It's certainly not safe for the child.

So that we would have the prerequisite for respect for the law, understandable by the common man, fairly enforceable with reasonable and acceptable sanctions, how would you go about dealing with what we had 50 years ago; illegal abortion shops, stuff people read about on the internet that will induce an abortion, rich folks who can get what they want?

You gonna put these 'murderers' behind bars? For how long? Life? Execute a few? You want this control. How you gonna do it better than it was before which lead to Roe?

 

[Larry Gude]

Sort of. More accurately I see murder as violating my principles.

OK, so, you rob a store, kill the clerk. You get arrested, tried and convicted. Are you being punished for violating my principles against murder or are you being punished for what you did to the clerk?

Certainly, it is in my general interest that you not be murdering store clerks as that affects me and the rest of society in general but, more specifically, you violating HIS rights, not mine.

So, now, you're a woman and the clerk is your unborn baby. You choose to have an abortion. I don't like it. I oppose it. I think, in general, society would be better off if there were no abortions but, unlike that clerk and my local store, the impact to me is several orders of magnitude less than murdering a clerk because, A, it has NO impact on me. I ain't hearing the shots, I ain't seeing you do it, I ain't fearing you on the loose and, B, it could not be any more your personal business.

You and GW are seeking to lump abortion and murder in the same principled 'all murder is murder' category, which is silly because you also are carving out exemptions for rape and incest and war, which is fine because it allows you a path to start sorting out, in a free land, what is your concern and what is not, in a legal sense.

The world was not, is not and never will be black and white. While it is simpler to digest that way, especially if you're the one in charge, making the black/white determinations, from day one, that is not how mankind works.

 

[Merlin99]

My point is an abortion shouldn't be legal. It's certainly not safe for the child.

Shouldn't be is only in your opinion, personally I can think of several cases where it should have been used.

 

[daileyck1]

My point is an abortion shouldn't be legal. It's certainly not safe for the child.

a zygote is not a child.

 

[Toxick]

Shouldn't be is only in your opinion, personally I can think of several cases where it should have been used.

We should just go ahead and make it legal to murder anybody who is an inconvenience to us then.

I know a whole lotta mother ####ers who are going to be dead if that happens.

 

[Merlin99]

We should just go ahead and make it legal to murder anybody who is an inconvenience to us then.

I know a whole lotta mother ####ers who are going to be dead if that happens.

The only problem I have with this idea is I'm not sure if I made it higher on the list than the person that wants to take me out.

 

[b23hqb]

The only problem I have with this idea is I'm not sure if I made it higher on the list than the person that wants to take me out.

That is something that we all will have to reckon with. Smith & Wesson in the arm rest box will help with a lot of that.

 

[GW8345]

OK, so, you rob a store, kill the clerk. You get arrested, tried and convicted. Are you being punished for violating my principles against murder or are you being punished for what you did to the clerk?

Certainly, it is in my general interest that you not be murdering store clerks as that affects me and the rest of society in general but, more specifically, you violating HIS rights, not mine.

So, now, you're a woman and the clerk is your unborn baby. You choose to have an abortion. I don't like it. I oppose it. I think, in general, society would be better off if there were no abortions but, unlike that clerk and my local store, the impact to me is several orders of magnitude less than murdering a clerk because, A, it has NO impact on me. I ain't hearing the shots, I ain't seeing you do it, I ain't fearing you on the loose and, B, it could not be any more your personal business.

You and GW are seeking to lump abortion and murder in the same principled 'all murder is murder' category, which is silly because you also are carving out exemptions for rape and incest and war, which is fine because it allows you a path to start sorting out, in a free land, what is your concern and what is not, in a legal sense.

The world was not, is not and never will be black and white. While it is simpler to digest that way, especially if you're the one in charge, making the black/white determinations, from day one, that is not how mankind works.

Um, can you see the irony of the statements I bold'ed.

You don't like any form of abortion but don't want to restrict a woman's right to kill her unborn baby, is that not black/white?

The reason why I make exceptions to the rule is because I know the world is not black/white but yet when it comes to abortion you think it's either restricted it completely or not at all. You support the death penalty, it's that murder, you are taking another human life. It basically boils down to the reason for the justification in taking another human life, taking it just because the mother made a poor choice is not justification for taking a life.

Now, you can continue the philosophical debate all you want, I'm not into that, I'm a simple man where right is right and wrong is wrong and I don't need to debate the philosophical means behind it. Also, I will not try to justify my beliefs using you logic because I believe your logic is flawed, just like you believe my beliefs are flawed. With that said, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[MMDad]

OK, so, you rob a store, kill the clerk. You get arrested, tried and convicted. Are you being punished for violating my principles against murder or are you being punished for what you did to the clerk?

Certainly, it is in my general interest that you not be murdering store clerks as that affects me and the rest of society in general but, more specifically, you violating HIS rights, not mine.

So, now, you're a woman and the clerk is your unborn baby. You choose to have an abortion. I don't like it. I oppose it. I think, in general, society would be better off if there were no abortions but, unlike that clerk and my local store, the impact to me is several orders of magnitude less than murdering a clerk because, A, it has NO impact on me. I ain't hearing the shots, I ain't seeing you do it, I ain't fearing you on the loose and, B, it could not be any more your personal business.

You and GW are seeking to lump abortion and murder in the same principled 'all murder is murder' category, which is silly because you also are carving out exemptions for rape and incest and war, which is fine because it allows you a path to start sorting out, in a free land, what is your concern and what is not, in a legal sense.

The world was not, is not and never will be black and white. While it is simpler to digest that way, especially if you're the one in charge, making the black/white determinations, from day one, that is not how mankind works.

Larry, consider this.

We look back at the Germans in WWII and many people judge them for seeing what was happening and allowing it to continue. The knew, or should have known, that it was wrong, but they did nothing.

To those that feel strongly about this issue this is their holocaust. They believe that inaction is just as wrong as committing the act. But they are not worried about how history will judge them, they believe a higher power will judge them.

You don't share their view, obviously, but don't you see how futile it is for you to constantly try to convince them? It's not a logic thing. No amount of explaining it will make one iota of difference to them because your opinion on this is irrelevant to them.