I don't care if you think abortion is wrong.

[EnemyPartyII]

Ah. Glad to see what consideration this is worth. I've had 6 kids conceived while mom was breastfeeding.

yes, thats why they don't recomend breast feeding as a contraceptive method. However, when it DOES work... thats HOW it works.

Oh... yoy can also have an egg fertilised if you have sex while pregnant that then won't implant.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

<staff edit>

what did she say thats horrid?

 

[Texas Lynn]

first, I'd like to see Roe V. Wade overturned. This would bring power back to the states to determine the legality of abortion.

Be careful what you wish for. Prior to Roe states were in the process of decriminalizing abortion on an incremental basis. Ronald Reagan (!) signed the landmark Belieson Bill in 1967 in California as its Governor and a significant umber of other Governors did likewise with minimal opposition. Many disagreed with the strategy of Weddington, et al, in Roe and Doe to strike down all state statutes. In retrospect it can be said in one regard they were right: without Roe the opposition would likely have remained insignificant. The antiabortion groups basically manufactured the view that a fetus is a person out of thin air when previously no one except very conservative Catholics accepted that.

Consider such things as South Dakota's referendum on a restrictive abortion law in 2006. Judicial review was not sought though the bill was blatantly unconstitutional. Instead they put forth the referendum and the result was a landslide against the legislation. If the anti-abortion forces could not win in that extremely conservative state one wonders if they could win anywhere.

Even so, suppose we have a quilted pattern of states at some time in the future post-Roe where some have legal abortion and others do not. Cora Corbett postulated such a reality in her novel Half Nation Under God. Corbett focused on Arizona, which had outlawed abortion and to a lesser extent on California which had preserved a woman's right to choose. California posted signs on highways leading to the Grand Canyon State warning women that state officials could not guarantee the safety of California's women in Arizona. There was good reason for this. Out of state women who were determined to be pregnant were forcibly detained and denied judicial process. Corruption and political manipulation ensued and essentially a fascist regime operated out of Phoenix. This was able to occur only because the Supreme Court which overturned Roe also did not apply the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the States in all other areas as well.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yes.

Why is that wrong? That's when a human being begins. When we start to grow as an individual organism.

I don't get why there's any dispute about this, especially coming from the science community. Life begins at conception. This is a truism!

No, it is merely an emotional judgment without any basis whatsoever.

 

[IzzyPop]

first, I'd like to see Roe V. Wade overturned. This would bring power back to the states to determine the legality of abortion. Second, with good time, I would like to see an amendment to the constitution protecting the rights of the unborn. It took federal action for the civil rights movement. It will take federal action to ensure the unborn get their chance at life in all 50 states.

So it is a state's rights issue as long as it is legal, but you support it as a national issue as long as it is illegal? Can you not see how illogical that is? Seriously, man. Think things through for yourself instead of regurgitating a mish-mash of tired talking points that actually contradict themselves.

 

[IzzyPop]

I don't know. I'll be honest.

I believe life begins at conception, all other measures are subjective.

Do other means of birth control result in abortion? I just don't know. If yes, then they too are wrong. They too are killing a human being.

I seriously don't get how any human being cannot believe they began at conception. That's when you became you. That's when you started. And you grew from there.

No. That is when you started. Purely subjective. I didn't start until about 1975 or so. That is when my first clear memory is. Everything prior to that is not me. Or I could take it back even farther. I started with the first bit of self-replicating protein. Everything since then has led to me (and you). Where you draw the line is a purely subjective stance.

 

[IzzyPop]

<staff edit>

Speak for yourself on that one, bud. She sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

[Christian Soldier]

No, it is merely an emotional judgment without any basis whatsoever.

Hogwash!

Modern medical science confirms that life begins at conception.

Women who believe they have a right to kill their babies are the ones making emotional judgements, and very unsound ones at that.

 

[Christian Soldier]

It is no coincidence that two regimes which vigorously enforced legal prohibition of abortion were Nazi Germany and Romania under the Ceaucesceau Regime. In contrast those countries with official pro-choice policies include the most progressive Western democracies.

I knew it wouldn't be long before one of the pro-death crowd brought up the Nazis.

Nazi Germany forbade only those women considered to be of "good Aryan blood" to have abortions, because it's pretty hard to build a "thousand year reich" without a lot of "good Aryans".

However, the Nazis MANDATED abortions for women considered to be "biologically inferior", i.e. Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Latins etc. The Nazis performed forced abortions on THOUSANDS of non-Aryan women who refused to get voluntary abortions. Many others were forcibly sterilized before they could get pregnant.

Your attempt to "poison the well" fails miserably, but Goebbels would've been proud of your effort!

 

[Ohioprof]

<staff edit>

As one of the "everyone else," I fail to see what is "horrid" about this other poster or her posts.

 

[IzzyPop]

Hogwash!

Modern medical science confirms that life begins at conception.

Really? How?

Women who believe they have a right to kill their babies are the ones making emotional judgements, and very unsound ones at that.

Nowhere in this thread has anyone advocated the killing of babies. To claim otherwise is emotionalism at its finest and, frankly, belies the very statement you are trying to make.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Modern medical science confirms that life begins at conception.

Not entirely true. Life doesn't come from non-life, and the two sex cells that join together at conception are very much alive. Human life could very well be said to be a non-broken chain of life back to the very first humans (and beyond).

 

[WatersMoon110]

You think? Do you really risk the lives of the unborn on what you think? You have no evidence, nothing. Scripture points to the soul being before the foundation of the world. Even so, at what point that babe gains the soul is unknown. Don't you think it is worth erring on the side of caution? Would you destroy a soul only on the basis of a personal theory?

But you're more than willing to deny a human right to pregnant woman on the basis of your theory? Though you also have no evidence to support it.

Let's assume that God actually is omnipotent and omniscient. He knew all of our souls long before we were born. He knew that each of us was going to be born. And He must know when a given unborn human is going to miscarry. Would He put a soul into a body that He knows isn't going to be born? To me, that seems unlikely.

On the basis that God is as all knowing and all powerful as He is said to be, why would He give a soul to an unborn human that is going to be aborted? (And, if He is all knowing, He would know this.) Souls are what make humans different, right? And He knows each individual soul before the human body it will inhabit is ever even conceived, right?

So, either God likes punishing souls by implanting them into unborn humans that are not going to make it to birth (through spontaneous or medical abortion), those particular souls not making it to birth is part of His plan, or He is wise enough to know when a given conception isn't going to be born and not give that human body a soul.

 

[Avatar]

what did she say thats horrid?

Speak for yourself on that one, bud. She sounds quite reasonable to me.

As one of the "everyone else," I fail to see what is "horrid" about this other poster or her posts.

My bad, apparently. Likening pro-lifers to Nazis is a-okay, I guess.

 

[WatersMoon110]

My bad, apparently. Likening pro-lifers to Nazis is a-okay, I guess.

No, but claiming that everyone shares your negative opinion of someone is also not okay. What she said was partially true, but not entirely true, and more information was added to show that while certain people under that horrible regime were not allowed to abort, others were forced to (neither of which is a Pro-Choice stance). But all you did was insult her, instead of attacking the post.

No one in here (to the best of my knowledge), on either side of this issue, is a Nazi, or even likes Nazis.

But the rest of her post was making a point. And I think that is what everyone was rather upset about. That you called her entire post (and herself) horrible, instead of showing why you felt the post wasn't true.

 

[Lisa0315]

No, but claiming that everyone shares your negative opinion of someone is also not okay. What she said was partially true, but not entirely true, and more information was added to show that while certain people under that horrible regime were not allowed to abort, others were forced to (neither of which is a Pro-Choice stance). But all you did was insult her, instead of attacking the post.

No one in here (to the best of my knowledge), on either side of this issue, is a Nazi, or even likes Nazis.

But the rest of her post was making a point. And I think that is what everyone was rather upset about. That you called her entire post (and herself) horrible, instead of showing why you felt the post wasn't true.

Perhaps, however, it is very, very bad form to use Hitler and the Nazis as an argument. It is actually a fallacious argument and generally used when the person is losing the argument. It is a desperate and emotional ploy.

I agree that it doesn't mean the person is horrible, but the argument is.

Lisa

 

[WatersMoon110]

Perhaps, however, it is very, very bad form to use Hitler and the Nazis as an argument. It is actually a fallacious argument and generally used when the person is losing the argument. It is a desperate and emotional ploy.

I agree that it doesn't mean the person is horrible, but the argument is.

I agree. And if someone hadn't already pointed out the flaw in her argument (that the Nazis were for mandatory abortion for the "lesser races" - and also were killing people!) I would have. Bringing up the stance of horrible people on this issue doesn't help with actually debating. But, he still should have addressed the post instead of just insulting her.

 

[Lisa0315]

I agree. And if someone hadn't already pointed out the flaw in her argument (that the Nazis were for mandatory abortion for the "lesser races" - and also were killing people!) I would have. Bringing up the stance of horrible people on this issue doesn't help with actually debating. But, he still should have addressed the post instead of just insulting her.

I agree. I think the issue is so personal and so emotional that it is difficult to separate the two. I know I have made the same mistake myself.

Lisa

 

[Avatar]

I agree. And if someone hadn't already pointed out the flaw in her argument (that the Nazis were for mandatory abortion for the "lesser races" - and also were killing people!) I would have. Bringing up the stance of horrible people on this issue doesn't help with actually debating. But, he still should have addressed the post instead of just insulting her.

That I'm not a Nazi shouldn't need to be addressed, I'd assume its a given. And I consider likening pro-lifers to Nazis to be an insult.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I agree. I think the issue is so personal and so emotional that it is difficult to separate the two. I know I have made the same mistake myself.

I think everyone has. It's pretty hard not to. Humans are very emotional creatures, and it's almost impossible to be rational about issues which "tug at our heart strings". But being so emotionally involved often makes debate about this issue seem more like personal attacks, too. So I think it is worth the effort to keep emotions out of this debate.