View Full Version : Someone make the case
actsnoblemartin
02-09-2009, 02:29 PM
why in the world should the government regulate abortion.
partial birth, disgusting, of course i'd ban it.
but, how can then incompetent u.s. government, stop abortion?
just a thought
Immanuel
02-09-2009, 02:43 PM
why in the world should the government regulate abortion.
partial birth, disgusting, of course i'd ban it.
but, how can then incompetent u.s. government, stop abortion?
just a thought
For a quick starter, human life begins at the point of conception regardless of what some people like to claim. I have never once seen a credible argument that says otherwise.
It is the duty of the government to protect human life whenever possible. Therefore the government should regulate abortion in order to protect human life.
Immie
Hobbit
02-09-2009, 04:40 PM
Here's the logic. I believe that an unborn baby is, in fact, a person, with all the rights a privileges that go with that. Thus, starting with that assumption and the assumption that it is the duty of the government to protect the rights of its citizens from others, it proceeds:
A fetus is a person, therefore
as a person, the fetus has a right to live, therefore
an abortion deprives that fetus of his/her right to live without due process of law, thus
it is the responsibility of the government to protect a fetus from abortion.
manu1959
02-09-2009, 05:10 PM
because they can't tax it.........if they could tax it you wouldn't be allowed to kill it......
on a different note..... if life begins at conception can't you drink 9 months earlier than your current "birthday" ..... hey the new age of consent would be 17 and 3 months .....
DannyR
02-09-2009, 05:54 PM
why in the world should the government regulate abortion.
its in the interests of a state to look after the welfare of its citizens.
Where the line on when a fetus becomes a fully protected "citizen" is the only issue in my mind.
The idea that life begins at conception is relatively new and based on our better medical understanding of it. Since infant morality and stillbirths were much higher in the past, there is a strong tradition that life begins at birth, or at the "quickening" when the mother can feel the baby begin to move on its own, thus insuring its alive.
Obviously there is no single opinion on this issue, as our nation is split. That alone in my mind is another reason why the government should not get too involved in the issue but leave it up to the woman and her doctor.
In general I favor the original Roe vs Wade decision, allowing states to restrict abortions after the 2nd trimester, but keeping hands off in the 1st.
partial birth, disgusting, of course i'd ban it.
You'd need a very specific definition before you ban this. As most partial birth abortion bills are written today, they actually ban a much larger number of abortions than just the classic one portrayed by pro-lifers and make no excuses for stillbirths that need to be removed immediately.
but, how can then incompetent u.s. government, stop abortion?
In my opinion, the only way abortion will ever become rare or eliminated is when we have developed the ability to transfer a fetus at any stage of development into an artificial womb. Take the mother out of the equation, and there is no reason to terminate the pregnancy because of her inconvenience.
theHawk
02-09-2009, 06:46 PM
why in the world should the government regulate abortion.
partial birth, disgusting, of course i'd ban it.
but, how can then incompetent u.s. government, stop abortion?
just a thought
Why stop murder? Why stop any other crime against humanity?
DannyR
02-09-2009, 07:14 PM
Why stop murder? Why stop any other crime against humanity?Problem is there is no consensus in our country that it is murder. Quick check of polls show nation is still pretty much 50:50 on the issue. With such a wide chasm of opinion, should the government enforce the morality of half the population on the other half?
Seems to me in such cases, if you are against abortions, then don't have one!
MtnBiker
02-09-2009, 07:37 PM
Problem is there is no consensus in our country that it is murder. Quick check of polls show nation is still pretty much 50:50 on the issue. With such a wide chasm of opinion, should the government enforce the morality of half the population on the other half?
Seems to me in such cases, if you are against abortions, then don't have one!
I wonder what the ratio of for and against on the issue of abortion would be from those that are aborted? How many of them are against abortion?
Problem is there is no consensus in our country that it is murder. Quick check of polls show nation is still pretty much 50:50 on the issue. With such a wide chasm of opinion, should the government enforce the morality of half the population on the other half?
Seems to me in such cases, if you are against abortions, then don't have one!
its doing just that...
by allowing abortions
Classact
02-09-2009, 07:55 PM
because they can't tax it.........if they could tax it you wouldn't be allowed to kill it......
on a different note..... if life begins at conception can't you drink 9 months earlier than your current "birthday" ..... hey the new age of consent would be 17 and 3 months .....Korean's do that, they celebrate the first birthday at what is known as the 100 day birthday, so 100 days following your birth you are one year old. There it is a huge celebration, the baby gets gold rings and gold bracelets and tons of food, beer and singing for the parents.
DannyR
02-09-2009, 08:18 PM
its doing just that...
by allowing abortionsI'll agree thats a very good point if you can explain how a woman you don't know having an abortion impacts your life directly.
I'll agree thats a very good point if you can explain how a woman you don't know having an abortion impacts your life directly.
the child...
what if the child saved my life, what if that child saved someone else's life...
what about the rights of that child?
do you really believe that a woman having an abortion ONLY impacts her life?
DannyR
02-09-2009, 08:54 PM
I agree it impacts the child's potential life - but again its arguable that a "potential" life is something requiring legal protection. Most of those who have abortions don't consider that unborn baby a real life.
I'm not so certain it impacts anybody else's in a definable way. You post a lot of "what ifs" there, but those aren't exactly direct results you can guarantee. One could just as easily point to all the potential serial killers, etc, that have been removed from the world.
There was a study not so long ago pointing out that lessening crime statistics of the past decade were a result of abortion for instance. (poor logic in my opinion, but again, a what-if)
Immanuel
02-09-2009, 08:55 PM
the child...
what if the child saved my life, what if that child saved someone else's life...
what about the rights of that child?
do you really believe that a woman having an abortion ONLY impacts her life?
What if...
... that child grows up to find the cure for Cancer?
Immie
Immanuel
02-09-2009, 08:57 PM
I agree it impacts the child's potential life - but again its arguable that a "potential" life is something requiring legal protection. Most of those who have abortions don't consider that unborn baby a real life.
I'm not so certain it impacts anybody else's in a definable way. You post a lot of "what ifs" there. One could just as easily point to all the potential serial killers, etc.
There was a study not so long ago pointing out that lessening crime statistics of the past decade were a result of abortion for instance. (poor logic in my opinion, but again, a what-if)
Wasn't that study performed by The Alan Guttmacher Institute or was it NARAL?
Immie
PS I'm only kidding as I have no idea who commissioned the study, but I would not be surprised if it were done by AGI or NARAL.
DannyR
02-09-2009, 08:59 PM
Wasn't that study performed by The Alan Guttmacher Institute or was it NARAL?
Found this link on it. It has a lot of the criticisms of the paper included.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime
Immanuel
02-09-2009, 09:10 PM
Found this link on it. It has a lot of the criticisms of the paper included.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime
Question:
Even if (and I am not claiming the study is accurate) lower crime rates occur due to legalized abortion, does that justify the taking of a human life who has not committed a crime? Did everyone of those 188 so-called "unwanted" children, commit heinous crimes?
I'm not asking for an answer as I doubt you would know the answer to that, but does a lower crime rate really justify the taking of a life that may never do anything worse than speeding five miles per hour over the speed limit or maybe lifting a candy bar at the age of 6?
Immie
I agree it impacts the child's potential life - but again its arguable that a "potential" life is something requiring legal protection. Most of those who have abortions don't consider that unborn baby a real life.
I'm not so certain it impacts anybody else's in a definable way. You post a lot of "what ifs" there, but those aren't exactly direct results you can guarantee. One could just as easily point to all the potential serial killers, etc, that have been removed from the world.
There was a study not so long ago pointing out that lessening crime statistics of the past decade were a result of abortion for instance. (poor logic in my opinion, but again, a what-if)
i answered your question and now you complain about what ifs....everything is a what if when it comes to human life, what if you didn't poop your pants tomorrow...
it directly affects my life, i would rather err on the cautious side of what if than not.
DannyR
02-09-2009, 09:48 PM
i answered your question and now you complain about what ifsBecause for every what-if scenario I can answer with one of my own. Its impossible to define such a stance as a direct impact upon your life, which is what I asked for.
Fact is that a woman you don't know having an abortion can't be directly measured as touching your life in any definable way. It doesn't impact your life in the slightest, except to make you uncomfortable.
but does a lower crime rate really justify the taking of a life that may never do anything worse than speeding five miles per hour over the speed limit or maybe lifting a candy bar at the age of 6?Answer to that is obviously no. Justifying abortion using such statistics is far too close to the eugenics of the mid 20th century for any reasonable person's comfort.
5stringJeff
02-09-2009, 09:51 PM
Here's the logic. I believe that an unborn baby is, in fact, a person, with all the rights a privileges that go with that. Thus, starting with that assumption and the assumption that it is the duty of the government to protect the rights of its citizens from others, it proceeds:
A fetus is a person, therefore
as a person, the fetus has a right to live, therefore
an abortion deprives that fetus of his/her right to live without due process of law, thus
it is the responsibility of the government to protect a fetus from abortion.
Word.
The government exists to protect the rights of its citizens. The foremost right of all people is the right to life. Therefore, the government must protect the right of its citizens to live. That's the justification for "regulating abortion."
Mr. P
02-09-2009, 09:54 PM
OH GOODY, another REPEAT episode of the circular never ending (NOR WILL IT) abortion crap. Channel change, I've seen this one a thousand times.
DannyR
02-09-2009, 09:56 PM
OH GOODY, another REPEAT episode of the circular never ending (NOR WILL IT) abortion crap. Channel change, I've seen this one a thousand times.Yup. Thus the reason I strongly believe abortion will always be an issue until science progresses to the point where the wishes of the woman no longer have to come into play.
OH GOODY, another REPEAT episode of the circular never ending (NOR WILL IT) abortion crap. Channel change, I've seen this one a thousand times.
YES, let's ban certain issues from this board
Mr. P
02-09-2009, 11:28 PM
YES, let's ban certain issues from this board
Who said anything about banning issues?
Who said anything about banning issues?
seemed like you didn't want to see that issue brought up here again and seemed quite upset
Mr. P
02-09-2009, 11:50 PM
seemed like you didn't want to see that issue brought up here again and seemed quite upset
Not upset at all.
Not upset at all.
oh, you're just tired of this crap and you just want to change the channel, not that others shouldn't talk about it?
Immanuel
02-10-2009, 08:08 AM
Answer to that is obviously no. Justifying abortion using such statistics is far too close to the eugenics of the mid 20th century for any reasonable person's comfort.
At least some realize that. It seems apparent that it was exactly what the authors of that research paper were trying to do.
Yup. Thus the reason I strongly believe abortion will always be an issue until science progresses to the point where the wishes of the woman no longer have to come into play.
I completely agree with you here. No, amount of convincing the world of the attrocities of abortion will change hearts... without God's help, that is. That doesn't mean we should be silent about it. In one form or another, abortion will be with us until we can somehow either change hearts or remove the need for abortions. Since changing hearts seems to be millenium away maybe our only hope is science.
Immie
bullypulpit
02-10-2009, 08:18 AM
For a quick starter, human life begins at the point of conception regardless of what some people like to claim. I have never once seen a credible argument that says otherwise.
It is the duty of the government to protect human life whenever possible. Therefore the government should regulate abortion in order to protect human life.
Immie
So the fact that the the newly fertilized egg is no more than a few undifferentiated cells is not a credible argument? Are you going to advocate the banning of all hormone based contraceptives and IUD's as they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall? And what about barrier methods of contraception? They interfere with the fertilization of the egg in the first place, thus interfering with God's handiwork. Do those get banned as well?
As for protecting human life wherever possible...Does that mean the government intercedes in the affairs of other nations where people are being tortured and murdered simply for their opposition the their current government, their religious views or their racial/ethnic identity? Does that mean we ban the death penalty in this country?
Immanuel
02-10-2009, 08:29 AM
So the fact that the the newly fertilized egg is no more than a few undifferentiated cells is not a credible argument? Are you going to advocate the banning of all hormone based contraceptives and IUD's as they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall? And what about barrier methods of contraception? They interfere with the fertilization of the egg in the first place, thus interfering with God's handiwork. Do those get banned as well?
I have not called for the "banning" of anything. As much as I would like to see abortion go away, making it illegal will not solve the problem. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not solve the problem. Has making drugs illegal stopped drug use?
Sure, if making it illegal would do the trick, I would say ban it, but that won't work. We have to work to other ways to stop abortion. Unfortunately, people on the left don't seem to want to accomplish such a task.
Immie
DannyR
02-10-2009, 11:19 AM
Unfortunately, people on the left don't seem to want to accomplish such a task.I'd have to disagree with that. We just have a different philosophy on what the best method is.
My wife and I both grew up with a minimum of information available to us. And comparing notes, most of the real info came from school in sex ed class. Kids just don't want to listen to their parents talk about sex and my parents were conservative and didn't want to talk about such things anyway. I had all of 1 "talk" growing up, and I was rather mortified. My parents didn't want me going to sex ed class and wouldn't sign the waiver allowing it. I forged their name and went anyway. It was my life, and ever since I was a small kid I've held the opinion that its better to know about something than ignore it.
Learning about sex does a lot more to prevent pregnancy in my opinion than just hoping it never happens and teaching "abstinence only".
Immanuel
02-10-2009, 12:01 PM
I'd have to disagree with that. We just have a different philosophy on what the best method is.
My wife and I both grew up with a minimum of information available to us. And comparing notes, most of the real info came from school in sex ed class. Kids just don't want to listen to their parents talk about sex and my parents were conservative and didn't want to talk about such things anyway. I had all of 1 "talk" growing up, and I was rather mortified. My parents didn't want me going to sex ed class and wouldn't sign the waiver allowing it. I forged their name and went anyway. It was my life, and ever since I was a small kid I've held the opinion that its better to know about something than ignore it.
Learning about sex does a lot more to prevent pregnancy in my opinion than just hoping it never happens and teaching "abstinence only".
I don't advocate "abstinence only". I advocate abstinence first and as the best method. I am not opposed to Sex Ed in school although, I believe Kindergarten is too young. In fact, I think Sex Ed is an important part of education. Sex Ed classes help children to learn the things that they are afraid to ask mom and dad without going into graphic detail.
I still don't see the left as doing anything at all to limit abortions.
Immie
bullypulpit
02-11-2009, 07:00 AM
I have not called for the "banning" of anything. As much as I would like to see abortion go away, making it illegal will not solve the problem. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not solve the problem. Has making drugs illegal stopped drug use?
Sure, if making it illegal would do the trick, I would say ban it, but that won't work. We have to work to other ways to stop abortion. Unfortunately, people on the left don't seem to want to accomplish such a task.
Immie
We do...It's called fact-based sex education. It works.
As for stopping abortions...It's a decision between a woman and her health care provider, and before the end of the first trimester, the state has no compelling interest in the issue as stated in Roe v. Wade.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.