Should we vote on abortion?

[Randall McNally]

I do however state that it is incumbent upon the government to prove that the life is not a person.

That is a nonsensical requirement. A "person" is whatever we decide it is. There is no objective definition to which we can appeal.

We know it is life, our revered documents state self-evident and Creator - not government's right to declare non-personhood.

Then whose is it?

Burden of proof is upon the government - given the natural course of events, the fetus would most likely meet future, established recognition of personhood.

Recognized by whom? The government?

Again, the subject is whether or not Democratic Republic process should be used as opposed to judicial tyranny.

Horribly false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possibilities.

 

[HazyRigby]

You sound as if there is certain evidence that it would have remained legal. We of course will never know if it would be ratifiied to be abolished then or even prior... because there were those that didn't want that descision in the the hands of the moral citizen majority. A note that would help you keep things in perspective, not everyone was a plantation managing, slave owning, entreprenuer back 'in those days'.

No kidding.

You'll have to excuse me if I also wouldn't want the abortion decision in the hands of the "moral citizen majority," either.

It is also your choice to avoid the condition from occurring in the first place - and that 'choice' doesn't require the pain and killing of a fetus, over-riding a man's right to decide the fate of his offspring, or the financial servitude of the taxpayer to promote it. That would be referred to as being a responsible adult.

Once again, no kidding. Responsible adulthood, however, does not include never making any serious mistakes or having something terrible happen to you. And though I think that a man should have a right to have input as to what should happen to his potential child, the decision should ultimately be the woman's. Why? Her body is the one that must nourish it. Her body is the one that must go through the trauma of pregnancy and birth. I agree, though, that taxpayers should not have to fund abortions, but there are a lot of things that I think taxpayers should not have to fund.

I see that there is a majority of non-Christians responding to this. A pity that some would remain silent on this discussion given the value and respect of life - all life.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1232996-the-lord-said-to-moses-take-all-the-chiefs-of-the-people-and-impale-them.html

Hate to thread-drag, but where's the value and respect of life here? Christians don't have a strangehold on that particular value.

All I have seen is a claim that privacy triumps over all and that the decision of one (the woman) over others' (the father, the child, the citizen) is better than the decision of many over endorsing a fews' choice.

Well, of course it is. To assume otherwise would be to force a woman to do something with her body that she does not wish to do. The "decision of many" should have nothing to do with it. Abortion comes down to two people--the mother and the father. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it IS a privacy issue?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That is a nonsensical requirement. A "person" is whatever we decide it is. There is no objective definition to which we can appeal.

It may be nonsensical to someone that is riding on luxuries provided by others' sacrifice and commitment. To a reflective man, such statements above are reminiscent of Hitler, Slave Traders and the like. The moment someone considers one group deciding the life, death, permanency of condition of another and places himself/herself in the negative, the injustice is self-evident. But until someone becomes less pampered, this consideration doesn't normally occur of have a catalyst to spur the thought.

Then whose is it?

I'll tell you whom it is not. It is not a group of 9 that are partakers in millions upon millions, based on one decision.

Recognized by whom? The government?

I'll let you in on a little secret, the government has its authority by the citizen's submission to that authority to rule. This may be too foreign for you, so I'll leave it at that.

Horribly false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possibilities.

One, I did not state that those were the ONLY options. Two, since you have a gift of making obvious statements, perhaps you would actually contribute by offering another possibility.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

http://www.christianforums.com/t1232996-the-lord-said-to-moses-take-all-the-chiefs-of-the-people-and-impale-them.html

Hate to thread-drag, but where's the value and respect of life here? Christians don't have a strangehold on that particular value.

Obviously, you don't hate thread dragging too much or you wouldn't have presented the red herring. And a bad one at that. Here is a small clue, the thread presented is Jewish more than it is Christian based on covenants. But I'm sure that precision wasn't what you were aiming for. Perhaps next time you can present the red herring based on the Spanish Inquisition.

Well, of course it is. To assume otherwise would be to force a woman to do something with her body that she does not wish to do. The "decision of many" should have nothing to do with it. Abortion comes down to two people--the mother and the father. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it IS a privacy issue?

So if I don't want to force my body in clothes, I can make strolls by the local schoolyard in the buff?
If I wanted to plot out the overthrow of government in the privacy of my bedroom, I can without fear of obstruction?
If I wanted to die by way of AIDS and still be free to have unprotected sex until it did its job, I can without considering beyond 'privacy'?
The screech of 'privacy' as a blanket for everything is a tired one. We are supposed to be discussing morality - not being self-centered or self-involved.

 

[Randall McNally]

It may be nonsensical to someone that is riding on luxuries provided by others' sacrifice and commitment. To a reflective man, such statements above are reminiscent of Hitler, Slave Traders and the like. The moment someone considers one group deciding the life, death, permanency of condition of another and places himself/herself in the negative, the injustice is self-evident. But until someone becomes less pampered, this consideration doesn't normally occur of have a catalyst to spur the thought.

Quite prosaic, but seemingly irrelevant. We still have to define "person" and emotionalizing that process to the nth degree probably will not help.

I'll tell you whom it is not. It is not a group of 9 that are partakers in millions upon millions, based on one decision.

A classic case of shifting responsibility. A Christian should know better.

SCOTUS is not responsible, in any reasonable sense, for a single death. It might have happened that not a single woman chose to abort after Roe. Unlikely, but possible.

But by your reasoning, the legislature's failure to criminalize eating lead weights would make them responsible for any poisoning deaths that might so occur.

I'll let you in on a little secret, the government has its authority by the citizen's submission to that authority to rule. This may be too foreign for you, so I'll leave it at that.

Well, thanks, but you seem to have missed the point. The state is the vehicle by which personhood is established and recognized. Proximally, it is not the will of the electorate but the will of the elected that matters.

One, I did not state that those were the ONLY options. Two, since you have a gift of making obvious statements, perhaps you would actually contribute by offering another possibility.

How about, "It isn't judicial tyrrany just because you disagree."

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Quite prosaic, but seemingly irrelevant. We still have to define "person" and emotionalizing that process to the nth degree probably will not help.

Prosaic is probably the more accurate, but less common term used by some describing my thoughts. I take it as a compliment that you notice that I'm not given to fluffing up words in order to make them more palatable and yet can communicate without emotional 'reading into'. I do however see a contradiction in prosaic being mentioned in the first sentence and emotionalizing mentioned in the last. To my understanding, it would be one or the other.

A classic case of shifting responsibility. A Christian should know better.

Only if you go to the extreme that you are claiming that I am. With power, comes responsibility. Their hands are not clean from this, but I by no means declare them as holding the full burden.

SCOTUS is not responsible, in any reasonable sense, for a single death. It might have happened that not a single woman chose to abort after Roe. Unlikely, but possible.

People choosing to follow their desires or shirking fallout of their actions do not concern me in this. My desire is not to hound a person(s) but to defend the innocent(s). I would also be remise if I as a citizen did not share in the guilt concerning this, thus the plea for change and morality.

But by your reasoning, the legislature's failure to criminalize eating lead weights would make them responsible for any poisoning deaths that might so occur.

Only if my reasoning is perverted into meaning that my statements call for inaction.

Well, thanks, but you seem to have missed the point. The state is the vehicle by which personhood is established and recognized. Proximally, it is not the will of the electorate but the will of the elected that matters.

Please don't miss my point. The state vehicle is elected by the citizen in HOPE and TRUST that justice will be served. SC Judges are not elected.

How about, "It isn't judicial tyrrany just because you disagree."

That may be true, but how would we ever know if the citizens are not allowed to address it?