electoral college
- Thread starter jennythebugg
- Start date
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809730
The problem with Pro Lifers is they try to tie moral beliefs and principles into what should be a medical decision. Faith shouldn't define the legalities of abortion. People are adamant about keeping religioin out of our government, except when it comes to issues like abortion.
What about abortion (imo murder) is religious? Are you saying that murder and other "moral" crimes are a result of religion in government?
http:///forum/post/2809730
The problem with Pro Lifers is they try to tie moral beliefs and principles into what should be a medical decision. Faith shouldn't define the legalities of abortion. People are adamant about keeping religioin out of our government, except when it comes to issues like abortion.
What about abortion (imo murder) is religious? Are you saying that murder and other "moral" crimes are a result of religion in government?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809730
That's the biggest debate regarding abortion - defining whether the fetus at the time of the abortion is considered a human being that fully understands its surroundings, and knows it's a living, breathing organism. In first trimester abortions, the fetus is just developing its major organs. It has no cognitive reasoning, or any awareness of its state. So in medical or scientific terms, it's not what we define as a 'child'. It would be impossible for a fetus at this stage to survive out of the womb. As far as second and third trimester fetuses, even I can agree you are borderline as to whether the fetus is considered 'human'. For me, if the fetus could successfully survive outside of the womb at the time the abortion would be performed, then there should be no abortion. (yea, yea, somewhat contradicts my statement of 'how it's done'. However I did say HOW, not WHEN). The problem with Pro Lifers is they try to tie moral beliefs and principles into what should be a medical decision. Faith shouldn't define the legalities of abortion. People are adamant about keeping religioin out of our government, except when it comes to issues like abortion.
As far as 'survive in this world', my argument is based on economics. Yes, in most cases they would not die if they did not have an abortion (However, the ultra Pro Lifers even consider medical or life-threatening abortions wrong). But having a child while barely being able to take care of themselves physically or economically, could in fact lead them to a depressive state whereby they may end their lives. Extreme? Maybe. But for some people, that's all it takes to put them over the top. And for children who get pregnant, having a child while still being a child can have a devastating effect on their future.
so your argument is since they are not able to live on their own that they are not (can't think of a good word) a person?
http:///forum/post/2809730
That's the biggest debate regarding abortion - defining whether the fetus at the time of the abortion is considered a human being that fully understands its surroundings, and knows it's a living, breathing organism. In first trimester abortions, the fetus is just developing its major organs. It has no cognitive reasoning, or any awareness of its state. So in medical or scientific terms, it's not what we define as a 'child'. It would be impossible for a fetus at this stage to survive out of the womb. As far as second and third trimester fetuses, even I can agree you are borderline as to whether the fetus is considered 'human'. For me, if the fetus could successfully survive outside of the womb at the time the abortion would be performed, then there should be no abortion. (yea, yea, somewhat contradicts my statement of 'how it's done'. However I did say HOW, not WHEN). The problem with Pro Lifers is they try to tie moral beliefs and principles into what should be a medical decision. Faith shouldn't define the legalities of abortion. People are adamant about keeping religioin out of our government, except when it comes to issues like abortion.
As far as 'survive in this world', my argument is based on economics. Yes, in most cases they would not die if they did not have an abortion (However, the ultra Pro Lifers even consider medical or life-threatening abortions wrong). But having a child while barely being able to take care of themselves physically or economically, could in fact lead them to a depressive state whereby they may end their lives. Extreme? Maybe. But for some people, that's all it takes to put them over the top. And for children who get pregnant, having a child while still being a child can have a devastating effect on their future.
so your argument is since they are not able to live on their own that they are not (can't think of a good word) a person?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2809833
What about abortion (imo murder) is religious? Are you saying that murder and other "moral" crimes are a result of religion in government?
People against abortion base their disdain to the action based on their faith or moral beliefs. Moral beliefs and faith equate to religion or religious beliefs.
That's the problem, you equate abortion to murder. Define murder. Are you a vegitarian as well? Any meat you eat comes from an animal that has more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus. Got any problem 'murdering' them? I said "issues like abortion". I wasn't talking about homicide-type murders.
http:///forum/post/2809833
What about abortion (imo murder) is religious? Are you saying that murder and other "moral" crimes are a result of religion in government?
People against abortion base their disdain to the action based on their faith or moral beliefs. Moral beliefs and faith equate to religion or religious beliefs.
That's the problem, you equate abortion to murder. Define murder. Are you a vegitarian as well? Any meat you eat comes from an animal that has more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus. Got any problem 'murdering' them? I said "issues like abortion". I wasn't talking about homicide-type murders.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809859
People against abortion base their disdain to the action based on their faith or moral beliefs. Moral beliefs and faith equate to religion or religious beliefs.
That's the problem, you equate abortion to murder. Define murder. Are you a vegitarian as well? Any meat you eat comes from an animal that has more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus. Got any problem 'murdering' them? I said "issues like abortion". I wasn't talking about homicide-type murders.
Euthanizing some mentally challenged would also be justified with your argument.
I base my disapproval on the fact that an innocent human's life is terminated. I didn't realise that was a "religious" view.
http:///forum/post/2809859
People against abortion base their disdain to the action based on their faith or moral beliefs. Moral beliefs and faith equate to religion or religious beliefs.
That's the problem, you equate abortion to murder. Define murder. Are you a vegitarian as well? Any meat you eat comes from an animal that has more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus. Got any problem 'murdering' them? I said "issues like abortion". I wasn't talking about homicide-type murders.
Euthanizing some mentally challenged would also be justified with your argument.
I base my disapproval on the fact that an innocent human's life is terminated. I didn't realise that was a "religious" view.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2809844
so your argument is since they are not able to live on their own that they are not (can't think of a good word) a person?
You're getting into the realm what is the defintion of the life of a fetus. Is a first trimester fetus defined as what you call a 'person'? To Pro Lifers, yes. To Pro Choice, no.
http:///forum/post/2809844
so your argument is since they are not able to live on their own that they are not (can't think of a good word) a person?
You're getting into the realm what is the defintion of the life of a fetus. Is a first trimester fetus defined as what you call a 'person'? To Pro Lifers, yes. To Pro Choice, no.
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2809745
At this point, just about any Democrat would be better than obama.
Question though, would Man-Bear-Pig actually run under the Democratic ticket??
http:///forum/post/2809745
At this point, just about any Democrat would be better than obama.
Question though, would Man-Bear-Pig actually run under the Democratic ticket??
kingsmith
Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2809886
Question though, would Man-Bear-Pig actually run under the Democratic ticket??
who cares I'd vote for him/it
http:///forum/post/2809886
Question though, would Man-Bear-Pig actually run under the Democratic ticket??
who cares I'd vote for him/it
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2809871
Euthanizing some mentally challenged would also be justified with your argument.
Incorrect. Even the most severly mentally challenged individuals have some sense of cognitive thinking. Like I said, I disagree with terminating a pregnancy where the fetus could successfully live outside the womb. These individuals meet that criteria. Have severly brain damaged fetuses been aborted even though they could survive outside the womb? Of course. But those usually occur because the parent is either emotionally or financially unable to handle raising a child with these types of disabilities.
http:///forum/post/2809871
Euthanizing some mentally challenged would also be justified with your argument.
Incorrect. Even the most severly mentally challenged individuals have some sense of cognitive thinking. Like I said, I disagree with terminating a pregnancy where the fetus could successfully live outside the womb. These individuals meet that criteria. Have severly brain damaged fetuses been aborted even though they could survive outside the womb? Of course. But those usually occur because the parent is either emotionally or financially unable to handle raising a child with these types of disabilities.
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809873
Is a first trimester fetus defined as what you call a 'person'?
And/or when does the egg cease to be part of the woman??
http:///forum/post/2809873
Is a first trimester fetus defined as what you call a 'person'?
And/or when does the egg cease to be part of the woman??
reefraff
Active Member
Abortion, unless the fetus is alread dead ends a human life period. Only a fool would against that point.
War, the death penalty and some acts of self defense also end human life. I am not against any of them. There is suck a thing as justifiable homocide.
If a woman is using abortion as a form of birth control or ends a pregnancy for a stupid reason (I am too young for stretch marks etc.) I think it's deplorable but whether or not it is murder is between her and her maker. I don't want conservatives being the thought police any more than I want the liberals doing it.
War, the death penalty and some acts of self defense also end human life. I am not against any of them. There is suck a thing as justifiable homocide.
If a woman is using abortion as a form of birth control or ends a pregnancy for a stupid reason (I am too young for stretch marks etc.) I think it's deplorable but whether or not it is murder is between her and her maker. I don't want conservatives being the thought police any more than I want the liberals doing it.
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/2809889
who cares I'd vote for him/it
Think about it!
http:///forum/post/2809889
who cares I'd vote for him/it
Think about it!
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809859
People against abortion base their disdain to the action based on their faith or moral beliefs. Moral beliefs and faith equate to religion or religious beliefs.
That's the problem, you equate abortion to murder. Define murder. Are you a vegitarian as well? Any meat you eat comes from an animal that has more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus. Got any problem 'murdering' them? I said "issues like abortion". I wasn't talking about homicide-type murders.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809891
Incorrect. Even the most severly mentally challenged individuals have some sense of cognitive thinking. Like I said, I disagree with terminating a pregnancy where the fetus could successfully live outside the womb.
You tried to show the, in your mind, the absuridy that abortion is murder (in the first trimester) by comparing it is killing a cow, saying they have "more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus." Hoping I see the conclusion that slaughtering a cow is not murder then aborting a 1st trimester fetus based on "congnative thinking."
A slaughter cow isn't in danger of dying because of his development.
Taking those same requirements, not in danger of dying because of developement and dumber than a cow. Your argument says, it would be ok to Euthanize people who never mentally developed.
http:///forum/post/2809859
People against abortion base their disdain to the action based on their faith or moral beliefs. Moral beliefs and faith equate to religion or religious beliefs.
That's the problem, you equate abortion to murder. Define murder. Are you a vegitarian as well? Any meat you eat comes from an animal that has more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus. Got any problem 'murdering' them? I said "issues like abortion". I wasn't talking about homicide-type murders.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809891
Incorrect. Even the most severly mentally challenged individuals have some sense of cognitive thinking. Like I said, I disagree with terminating a pregnancy where the fetus could successfully live outside the womb.
You tried to show the, in your mind, the absuridy that abortion is murder (in the first trimester) by comparing it is killing a cow, saying they have "more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus." Hoping I see the conclusion that slaughtering a cow is not murder then aborting a 1st trimester fetus based on "congnative thinking."
A slaughter cow isn't in danger of dying because of his development.
Taking those same requirements, not in danger of dying because of developement and dumber than a cow. Your argument says, it would be ok to Euthanize people who never mentally developed.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2809785
If the fetus is not a human, what is it, a dog or cat or something? It would probably garner more consideration if it were.
A full term baby cannot survive on it's own, so that is a lame argument.
Say what? Of course a full term baby can live outside the womb. I'm not talking about it have to sustain its life on its own.
As far as "medical abortions" are concerned, would this include women who claim their "nerves" can't tolerate being pregnant?
Medical abortions are defined as a condition that would jeopardize the health and well being of the woman carrying the fetus. If a physician deems the patient to be psycologically unable to carry the fetus to full term, then yes.
As to the issue of a "life threatening" condition, it is more dangerous in some ways to have an abortion than it is to have a baby.
Could be. But most if not all abortion procedures are not life threatening. There have been deaths during abortions do to the patient 'bleeding out', but those ususally occurred in the back room clinics when abortions were illegal.
There are loving parents standing in lines to adopt babies. There is no need to kill them.
Standard argument for Pro Lifers. However, what about the babies that were not aborted that were born severely mentally retarded, severely handicapped, 'crack babies', major health problems, etc. and are never adopted and are still living in foster homes or orphanages funded by my tax dollars? You want to take one of those home? How many children would be alive today in the 40 or so years if Roe v. Wade was thrown out? Try 2 to 3 MILLION at least. Are there that many adoptive parents out there wanting these kinds of kids?
If I have offended anyone with my comments, so be it. It offends me terribly when innoccent human life is taken.
responses above.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2809748
Yeah, there are those that believe to the extreme. And that is their belief I guess, but doesn't fit myself. Children having children we can agree is wrong. But adults (full capacity to make decisions to have --- and understand consequences) are my main concern. As their choices are made with fully understanding how things work and by age 21 are able to make rational decisions. And so, I would say to them, you don't get a choice. You understand your situation and how choices impact your future, children not so much.
Would you be in support of an abortion age clause? How about a clause/law that limits the amount of abortions one may legally have when a medical condition resulting in potential death is not apparent./ Children having abortions I can understand. But as adults we should act like adults and I believe on many levels our societry is enabling people to act and remain children longer. Giving ways out so as to not suffer consequences when a personal decision was made.
since everyone hijacked Bionicarm's attention, I thought I would readdress my question to you.
http:///forum/post/2809748
Yeah, there are those that believe to the extreme. And that is their belief I guess, but doesn't fit myself. Children having children we can agree is wrong. But adults (full capacity to make decisions to have --- and understand consequences) are my main concern. As their choices are made with fully understanding how things work and by age 21 are able to make rational decisions. And so, I would say to them, you don't get a choice. You understand your situation and how choices impact your future, children not so much.
Would you be in support of an abortion age clause? How about a clause/law that limits the amount of abortions one may legally have when a medical condition resulting in potential death is not apparent./ Children having abortions I can understand. But as adults we should act like adults and I believe on many levels our societry is enabling people to act and remain children longer. Giving ways out so as to not suffer consequences when a personal decision was made.
since everyone hijacked Bionicarm's attention, I thought I would readdress my question to you.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2809917
You tried to show the, in your mind, the absuridy that abortion is murder (in the first trimester) by comparing it is killing a cow, saying they have "more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus." Hoping I see the conclusion that slaughtering a cow is not murder then aborting a 1st trimester fetus based on "congnative thinking."
A slaughter cow isn't in danger of dying because of his development.
Taking those same requirements, not in danger of dying because of developement and dumber than a cow. Your argument says, it would be ok to Euthanize people who never mentally developed.
No, in simple terms - you said killing a first trimester fetus is murder. I say it's only considered murder if the 'being' has cognitive thinking. A cow has cognitive thinking. A first trimester fetus doesn't.
Again, incorrect. Even a person who never mentally developed has some form of cognitive thinking. I also said if the fetus could survive out of the womb, it shouldn't be aborted.
http:///forum/post/2809917
You tried to show the, in your mind, the absuridy that abortion is murder (in the first trimester) by comparing it is killing a cow, saying they have "more cognitive senses and understanding of its living surroundings than a first trimester fetus." Hoping I see the conclusion that slaughtering a cow is not murder then aborting a 1st trimester fetus based on "congnative thinking."
A slaughter cow isn't in danger of dying because of his development.
Taking those same requirements, not in danger of dying because of developement and dumber than a cow. Your argument says, it would be ok to Euthanize people who never mentally developed.
No, in simple terms - you said killing a first trimester fetus is murder. I say it's only considered murder if the 'being' has cognitive thinking. A cow has cognitive thinking. A first trimester fetus doesn't.
Again, incorrect. Even a person who never mentally developed has some form of cognitive thinking. I also said if the fetus could survive out of the womb, it shouldn't be aborted.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2809945
since everyone hijacked Bionicarm's attention, I thought I would readdress my question to you.
The laws have already been set on when it's legal to have an abortion. It's irrelevent how young, old, or what mental or physical capacity the pregnant women is in. It's based on which trimester the fetus is in when the abortion is requested. You may not like it, but restricting it any other way is making the statement that the government decides what a woman can or can't do with their body, regardless of what's inside of it.
http:///forum/post/2809945
since everyone hijacked Bionicarm's attention, I thought I would readdress my question to you.
The laws have already been set on when it's legal to have an abortion. It's irrelevent how young, old, or what mental or physical capacity the pregnant women is in. It's based on which trimester the fetus is in when the abortion is requested. You may not like it, but restricting it any other way is making the statement that the government decides what a woman can or can't do with their body, regardless of what's inside of it.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809954
The laws have already been set on when it's legal to have an abortion. It's irrelevent how young, old, or what mental or physical capacity the pregnant women is in. It's based on which trimester the fetus is in when the abortion is requested. You may not like it, but restricting it any other way is making the statement that the government decides what a woman can or can't do with their body, regardless of what's inside of it.
I didn't ask about the law. I know the law as does everyone here. I asked if YOU would be ok with something like that.
http:///forum/post/2809954
The laws have already been set on when it's legal to have an abortion. It's irrelevent how young, old, or what mental or physical capacity the pregnant women is in. It's based on which trimester the fetus is in when the abortion is requested. You may not like it, but restricting it any other way is making the statement that the government decides what a woman can or can't do with their body, regardless of what's inside of it.
I didn't ask about the law. I know the law as does everyone here. I asked if YOU would be ok with something like that.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2810046
I didn't ask about the law. I know the law as does everyone here. I asked if YOU would be ok with something like that.
Since I just stated I agreed with the current law.... No.
http:///forum/post/2810046
I didn't ask about the law. I know the law as does everyone here. I asked if YOU would be ok with something like that.
Since I just stated I agreed with the current law.... No.