Let those without sin cast the first stone.
I wish more people thought the way you do, Jenn. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are so close minded that they just can't see beyond their way of thinking.
My brother and his wife are the exact opposite of your bolded quote. God forbid you don't agree with their beliefs no matter what the subject is.
Kudos!
Oh I have an aunt and uncle that suscribe to that brand of Christianity and they aren't the most popular family members.
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionst...0531casey1.asp
The son of a coal miner, Mr. Casey was an unrepentant New Deal liberal, whose political heroes were Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. When asked to describe the Democratic Party, Mr. Casey would often quote former Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The mission of the Democratic Party, Humphrey was fond of saying, is to help "those in the dawn of life, those in the shadow of life, and those in the twilight of life."
Mr. Casey saw his own opposition to abortion, which toward the end of his career put him at odds with many of his party's leaders, as rooted in what he believed was the historic role of the Democratic Party -- to protect the weak, the little guy who didn't always get a fair shake in life. He often compared opposition to abortion to the 19th century abolitionist movement against slavery.
"We can talk on and on about the problems facing children: abusive parents, malnourishment, neglect. But almost always these social ills are just the signs of a deeper malady. I would even say that in our culture today there is a callousness, a meanness, toward the child -- a violent streak slowly spreading out across society," Mr. Casey wrote in his autobiography, "Fighting for Life." "Let me say it directly: Abortion is the ultimate violence. For me it is a simple step in logic: if government has a duty to protect the powerless, then who among us is the most powerless, the most defenseless, the most voiceless? The answer is children."
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL08/bob_casey.htm
As the presidential campaign moves along and Democrats try to decide who the party's presidential nominee should be, pro-life Democrats can understandably remember, and long for, the resolute and spirited vitality of the late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey.
A staunch Democrat, Gov. Casey addressed abortion many times and in many places. In 1994, for example, he said of abortion, "Twenty-one years ago, it was sold to America as a kind of social cure, a resolution. Instead, it has left us wounded and divided. We were promised it would broaden the circle of freedom; instead, it has narrowed the circle of humanity. We were told the whole matter was settled and would soon pass from our minds; 20 years later it tears at our souls."
He continued, "The fundamental question posed by abortion is this: Once a child has been conceived, what is the proper response of a good society - - of America at her best? If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we, as a society, rise to that challenge, or do we steal away, dispensing with the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home or at the abortion clinic?"
should a woman have the right to choose? YES.
I believe the man should have rights in the matter as well though.
is it morally correct to terminate what would be an otherwise healthy pregnancy, that was the result of consentual sex by the woman....NO.
only one Judge though.
Well, if the premise of the right to choose involves the woman's body, then the man - while having an understandable emotional attachment to the embryo - does not have an equal right to the decision.
OK...lets REALLY kick this debate into high gear...Well, if the premise of the right to choose involves the woman's body, then the man - while having an understandable emotional attachment to the embryo - does not have an equal right to the decision.
a man and woman engage in consentual sex.
a pregnancy results.
for whatever reason the father does not want the child and encourages her to have a legal abortion.
the mother decides on her own to keep the child despite the fathers wishes.
should the father be forced to pay child support?
The "right to choose" also would seem to imply a right of the father to "choose" whether or not he wants any responsibility for the child whatsoever. I submit that men should be allowed to choose to disown their unborn children without any further financial responsibility whatsoever.
May sound harsh, but at least they aren't killing the child.
Anyways, the issue of abortion on demand is ridiculous. A choice already exists: don't .
Any man who doesn't wish to care for his own child is no man in my book.
I think that's fair.
fair is fair, but it's just as ty morally........should the father be forced to pay child support?
does anyone supporting a woman's right to choose have a problem with this pic?
just curious...
Everytime this subject comes up in this forum it receives 100,000 posts and replies. Nothing is ever changed except some bad feelings for others. Why doesn't everyone believe what they want to believe and respect the feelings of others. Yes. I have an opinion but I will not try to push it on others. Peace!
No one likes this argument, but here goes.
If a sperm and egg combined is a whole person, then isn't a sperm or egg by itself a half-person? Surely, killing them or letting them die is murder, too, or at least half-murder. Why is the value of X and Y by themselves nearly zero while XY together is invaluable? Did God do his thing and stick in an eternal soul at the same time?
well...next time you are thirsty don't get a glass of water (H2O) but rather just take a few deep breaths...there is plenty of H and O in the air...must be the same thing, right?Why is the value of X and Y by themselves nearly zero while XY together is invaluable?
I disagree with this premise. The reason I am morally opposed to abortion is because you've essentially terminated a future... which is the reason that killing is wrong in general.If a sperm and egg combined is a whole person, then isn't a sperm or egg by itself a half-person? Surely, killing them or letting them die is murder, too, or at least half-murder. Why is the value of X and Y by themselves nearly zero while XY together is invaluable? Did God do his thing and stick in an eternal soul at the same time?
At the point that you have only a sperm and an egg, nothing will happen a vast majority of the time. You could say it is LIKELY that no future person will be conceived... There is no such thing as a half person.
After conception, you would usually say it is likely that if left alone, a human (however you define it) will be the end result.
It all comes down to whether you believe the unborn baby is a human life. If so, then when does the baby get to choose? That's why I have a hard time understanding the stance taken by many who personally believe abortion is wrong, but say it should be a choice. If you believe abortion is wrong it is probably because you believe it involves terminating a human life. How can that be justified as a choice?should a woman have the right to choose? YES.
IMHO, everyone makes exceptions to their beliefs such as the dying in Iraq, Sudan and other places. Killing is sometimes a necessary evil.
Not to say that abortion is a necessary evil, but sometimes it is for the best.
Because the woman's choice is more important than the fetus'. By making abortion illegal, you give the fetus (and really the government) more control over the woman's body than the woman herself.
IMHO, this is why I get confused.
Isn't that what conservatives don't want?
Trying to rationalize views of hard-line conservatives or liberals is confusing.
The government restricts what we do with our bodies ten ways to Sunday. Taking abortion as the destruction of an individual life, well we are restricted from using our bodies to do the same with "born" individuals.
Also, I would add...what is so magical about popping out of the other side of the pussy that marks the start of life? The child is still dependent on someone else to live no matter what.
I say we allow parents to dispatch of their born children within 3 months of leaving their mother's body. I think that's fair.
Good point.
Once the child pops out, there are options besides being raised by the birth mother.... thus, it is no longer about the woman's right to her own body. Until we have a proven and reliable method for extracting an embryo and raising it, its only option after conception is to grow in the mother's womb.
And I would argue that other government restrictions on our bodies should be eliminated as well. Drugs, suicide, etc.
IMHO, I don't think that George Bush is committed to outlawing Abortion because he has not done the two things that he could do to outlaw it they are.
1) Propose a cons utional amendment to outlaw it. Since he has already said he would like such an amendment to outlaw gay marriage why not one to outlaw abortion? And since both the house and the senate are Republican majorities he could ask them to pass such an amendment and have a reasonable chance of it passing.
2) Try to appoint more supreme court justices and rather than have only 9 justices increase the number of justices to 11 or 13 or whatever it took for him to ensure that the court would overturn Roe V. Wade. The cons ution does not limit the number of supreme court justices to 9 and the president can appoint any number of justices he wants as FDR threatened to do when the Supreme court was striking down his new deal legislation over and over again. At that time the court backed down and started upholding his new deal legislation to prevent him from appointing more justices and it was called "the switch in time that saved nine". Everyone who has taken Cons utional law at the college or law school level knows about that and they also know that President Bush could with a republican majority in the senate as he has right now quite easily appoint as many justices as he wants or needs to overturn Roe V. Wade.
Because George W. Bush has not done either of these two things it proves he is not committed to overturning Abortion and he is just pandering to the religious right when he talks about abortion.
A strategy that works on some.
I mean seriously, why can't parents try out a child for a month or two? If they don't like the kid, cut his head off and dump him in a trash can.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
