right to life or a womans choice?

[Marcus Bryant]

If every pregnancy was the result of rape then I could see Spurm's point. But that's not the case.

[Spurminator]

Oh really? Tell that to a judge.

If you're arguing about child support, that's a separate issue.

The mother had a choice not to in the first place.

Moral issue. Choosing to have sex does not make you legally responsible for carrying a child.

The difference is that one person's life is ended, the other's is not.

Why does the priority go to the mother? We are talking about a temporary inconvenience for her versus the death of the child.

Sometimes we are talking about physical danger for the mother, though... Why wait to find out?

Call it a preemptive strike.

One person made choices that created the situation, the other did not.

Again, you're basing the stripping of a woman's right to her own body on the moral assertion that she should not have had sex.

[whottt]

If abortion is murder so be it. That still doesn't mean it's always wrong.

So is executing prisoners(even if they themselves are murderers)..and we have executed innocent men before. There is a commandment that says thou shalt not kill...it has no qualifiers attached to it.

So is chosing to remove life support of a person.

So is assisted suicide.

So is WAR. Right now we are mudering people daily in Iraq, many of them innocent.

A parent of siamese twins who chooses an operation that may kill one of the twins, so the other might live, is also murder.

It's not a clear case of right and wrong.

I look at the world and I see the places where life has the least value are place of deep religious fanatacism...or places where the population has outgrown the ability of the land to support it...those are the places where life is the cheapest.

Many of these suicide bombers and terrorists we are now murdering....were homeless, starving, opressed, unloved and angry children who were picked up off the streets of Pakistan and turned into weapons of hate and destruction...

What's the point of bringing a child into this world born with aids...

Aborting it is still murder.

If there is no one to take care of a child and love it and give it a fair chance at life, I will argue that abortion is the worst thing that could happen to that person.

My girlfriend works for CPS, and I can honestly say...I see a lot of cases where I would rather have been aborted that live the life some of these children have been foced to live.

So fighting like for a child to be born and then not caring about what happnes to it after it is born...is just as indifferent...can be just as inhumane.

It's problematic as well...many people who are prolife are also the ones that raise about welfare cases.

Even if the concept goes against your religion...death isn't supposed to be punishment remember? If so then we are all going to be punished. So even if there is a soul in an unborn child...why won't it just ben sent back to heaven and then sent to someone who does want that child and can take care of it?

There is no clear right and wrong issue on this. Abortion should never be an easy thing to do...at the same time it should never be labeled as always the wrong thing to do. If there is no one in the immediate family that can care for that child...I don't see how anyone can say that child is better off being sent off to an adoption place and made a ward of the state...than being aborted.

To me, that's ambivalence.

If you truly believe that abortion is always wrong...you should go and adopt a child right now. You should have at least 1 adopted child. You should practice what you preach and take an active role in what you feel is the solution.


I will say that I agree with one pro-life sentiment very strongly...

If the father is expected to pay child support in a state...he should also have a say in if the child is born. If he wants the child and has the ability to take care of it then the child should not be aborted without good reason. Either he is responsible for that child or he isn't...I migth even carry it further and say if anyone one in the immediate family is qualifed and wants to care for that child...the child should not be aborted. Yes it is a stiff price to pay for sex...and it should be. That will force responsibility. That will keep abortion from being a convenient solution to irresponsibility.

I also think kids need to be educated on this...they need to be shown picture of abortion...they also need to be shown what happens to children whose parents don't care for them or lack the ability to take care of them. I think it will make people be more responsible in the decisions they make.


This will never be solved by labeling one side right or wrong...because this is one issue where there is no clear cut right or wrong. Both sides have very strong and legitimate reasons for their stance...

And BTW Neocon, I don't know you but I am about 99% certain you are not the type of person I am talking about when I say some people have no business being parents.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you're arguing about child support, that's a separate issue.

Oh it's a direct issue. The man is required by law to pay for that child after its birth.

Parasite.

Moral issue. Choosing to have sex does not make you legally responsible for carrying a child.

What? The mother had a choice whether or not to engage in the behavior that leads to her being pregnant. Pretty straightforward.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, you're basing the stripping of a woman's right to her own body on the moral assertion that she should not have had sex.

Um we are preventing from doing many things with our bodies by law.

[Spurminator]

Oh it's a direct issue. The man is required by law to pay for that child after its birth.

Parasite.

Then revoke that law. Don't create another problem by making abortion illegal.

What? The mother had a choice to engage in the behavior that leads to her being pregnant. Pretty straightforward.

And for that, she has to follow through with either raising it or aborting it. What you're advocating is punishment.

Um we are preventing from doing many things with our bodies by law.

And once again, those issues should be dealt with on their own, not by compounding the problem even more.

[Shelly]

Whottt I can imagine what your girlfriend must see working for CPS. What are the demographics of the families she sees? Are the parents uneducated and poor? Or are there some families where one would never expect for them to be involved with CPS? Just curious.

[Marcus Bryant]

And for that, she has to follow through with either raising it or aborting it. What you're advocating is punishment.

What I am advocating is reality. There are plenty of behaviors we engage in with our bodies which can lead to debilitating states, including death. Yet those are legal.

If someone doesn't want to be in that predicament, there is a choice.

[Marcus Bryant]

And once again, those issues should be dealt with on their own, not by compounding the problem even more.

So the government should have no restrictions on what we do with our bodies?

[Spurminator]

Cir venting a woman's right to decide whether or not a parasite is feeding off of her body is punishment. Unless sex is regulated or made illegal, you can't punish someone for ing.

[Spurminator]

So the government should have no restrictions on what we do with our bodies?

As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I would say no.

Other than abortion, what restrictions on one's own body do you favor?

[Marcus Bryant]

Cir venting a woman's right to decide whether or not a parasite is feeding off of her body is punishment.

She had a right to decide whether or not she could reasonably end up with said parasite on her body.

Unless sex is regulated or made illegal, you can't punish someone for ing.

It's not "punishment" it is a natural result of the chosen behavior.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, every family has problems and issues regarless of their economic status. Some of the richest parents aint fit to be parents..case in point..the Osbournes.

[Marcus Bryant]

As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I would say no.

Well let's see. You just said that at conception a man and a woman have given away their right to that part of their bodies. If that is an individual at that point then it is definitely causing "harm" to someone else if you destroy it.

[Spurminator]

She had a right to decide whether or not she could reasonably end up with said parasite on her body.

That's where education comes in.

It's not "punishment" it is a natural result of the chosen behavior.

The natural result is conception. The punishment is forcing the woman to deal with it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Other than abortion, what restrictions on one's own body do you favor?

How about not killing someone else? How about not stealing from someone, etc. If life begins at conception then terminating the "parasite" is murder, plain and simple.

[Spurminator]

Well let's see. You just said that at conception a man and a woman have given away their right to that part of their bodies. If that is an individual at that point then it is definitely causing "harm" to someone else if you destroy it.

Yes, but as I've said, it's a choice between harming the fetus or the mother, and the mother has the final choice. In a situation where someone HAS to be harmed in some way, priority doesn't go to the dependant.

[Marcus Bryant]

The natural result is conception. The punishment is forcing the woman to deal with it.

The natural result is conception and pregnancy.

[Spurminator]

How about not killing someone else? How about not stealing from someone, etc.

Each of those affects another party.

Drug use, suicide, etc. do not.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, but as I've said, it's a choice between harming the fetus or the mother, and the mother has the final choice. In a situation where someone HAS to be harmed in some way, priority doesn't go to the dependant.

Why does that decision have to be made if it's the result of consensual sex?

[Marcus Bryant]

Each of those affects another party.

Drug use, suicide, etc. do not.

Drug use can definitely affect other people.

[Spurminator]

The natural result is conception and pregnancy.

That doesn't mean the woman shouldn't be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

The natural result of sex is conception, and some choose to avoid that with birth control. Human choice is founded on eliminating "natural results" where we are able.

[Spurminator]

Drug use can definitely affect other people.

That's why certain actions while under the influence of drugs are illegal.

Sitting in the corner of my room shooting heroin affects no one but me. If I go out and piss on someone as a result, I should be punished for that, not for the drug use.

[Marcus Bryant]

At this point you are blaming nature for creating the situation.

The natural result of sex is conception, and some choose to avoid that with birth control. Human choice is founded on eliminating "natural results" where we are able.

Well there you go. The mother even can reduce the chance of conception in the first place.

A child that exits the womb is a "natural result". Killing it should be an option.

[Spurminator]

Why does that decision have to be made if it's the result of consensual sex?

Because the woman has the final choice when it comes to her body. Even if she ed up by having consentual sex.