mlb Wrote:Same here, Crew.
been an upstanding member of society since he was born, has never had anything on his record, etc., but is for giving a person a choice to have an abortion or not.
Upstanding members of society don't offer the choice to murder innocents.
DrTorch Wrote:Upstanding members of society don't offer the choice to murder innocents.
Depends on your definition of where life begins, obviously. Honestly, as someone who has never been involved with an abortion, I really don't care where a politician stands on the issue. I want the best candidate out there, not the guy towing a party line. It is pathetic, IMHO, that someone votes based on 1 issue rather than on a whole platform of ideas.
Also... that being said, I'm not sure how you can complain about people having abortions when there are kids living on the street and in foster homes because nobody wants them. If every kid in this country were adopted and fully cared for then maybe I could see your point. Instead we allow our children to go to orphanages that don't offer the love and support one needs to have an above average chance to succeed in life.
I'd venture a guess that over 75% (probably higher) of the people who have abortions in this country live in poverty conditions. These people have no healthcare except for medicaid, and live on welfare. Their kids come in to being with no parental support, nobody making sure they stay healthy, nobody forcing them to get an education, teaching proper morals, etc. etc... was making sure that someone did not have an abortion worth the effort in this case?
I can guarantee one thing, I do think someone should decide within the first trimester of a pregnancy. Outside of that I'm not sold on banning abortion.
mlb Wrote:Depends on your definition of where life begins, obviously. Honestly, as someone who has never been involved with an abortion, I really don't care where a politician stands on the issue. I want the best candidate out there, not the guy towing a party line. It is pathetic, IMHO, that someone votes based on 1 issue rather than on a whole platform of ideas.
Exactly. I mean who cares if a candidate favors killing an unborn human being as long as his ideas on tax policy and illegal immigration suit your needs.
Quote:Also... that being said, I'm not sure how you can complain about people having abortions when there are kids living on the street and in foster homes because nobody wants them. If every kid in this country were adopted and fully cared for then maybe I could see your point.
Sooooo, it would be better for them to be dead as opposed to living in foster homes. Interesting logic.
Quote:Instead we allow our children to go to orphanages that don't offer the love and support one needs to have an above average chance to succeed in life.
Two wrongs don't make right.
Quote:I'd venture a guess that over 75% (probably higher) of the people who have abortions in this country live in poverty conditions.
You'd be wrong.
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
The family income is an important measure as opposed to individual because 22% of abortions are teenage girls. And 60% of abortions are obtained by white women, but black women are 3 times more likely to have an abortion.
Quote:Their kids come in to being with no parental support, nobody making sure they stay healthy, nobody forcing them to get an education, teaching proper morals, etc. etc... was making sure that someone did not have an abortion worth the effort in this case?
Do you even comprehend what a bigoted comment that is? I know more than a few low income mothers and fathers who are spectacular parents and work very hard to provide what little they can for their kids.
Low income and bad parenting aren't synonymous.
mlb Wrote:Instead we allow our children to go to orphanages that don't offer the love and support one needs to have an above average chance to succeed in life.
Instead, the abortion takes away all chance of that happening. If you were that fetus, would you rather die or have a small chance at suceeding in life? Be honest.
Hey pro-lifers, stop trying to make a new argument out of nothing.
The important quote:
mlb Wrote:It is pathetic, IMHO, that someone votes based on 1 issue rather than on a whole platform of ideas.
I'm no fan of abortion, but I won't base my vote on one issue.
This issue spawns more single-issue voters than any other, I think. and both parties play to their side of the issue.
Once anyone comes to the conclusion that mothers have the right to kill their children, then the only thing remaining is to set an age limit beyond which it is no longer allowed. First trimester? Date of birth? Eighteenth birthday?
Likewise, once someone comes to the conclusion that interfence with the formation of a life constitutes murder, you come to the same question. At what point does this become murder? The day-after pill? The first trimester? The use of birth control?
I don't know. I have an idea of how I would react for myself, but I am a man. I don't know where to draw the time line either. So I choose not to make the decisions for others.
I grew up in the years before Roe v. Wade. Girls who got pregnant then had fewer options, and some of them involved illegal back alley abortions, others invovled a long visit at Aunt Emily's. I knew girls who had illegal abortions, and I know of at least one who died. Today there is little stigma to having an illegitimate child, so maybe the pressure to make such choices would be lessened.
Fanatical Wrote:Hey pro-lifers, stop trying to make a new argument out of nothing.
The important quote:
mlb Wrote:It is pathetic, IMHO, that someone votes based on 1 issue rather than on a whole platform of ideas.
I'm no fan of abortion, but I won't base my vote on one issue.
I split this out since it got away from the original point. My question still stands for all of the "Pro-Choicers". Would you rather die or have a small chance of suceeding in life?
GrayBeard Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:Hey pro-lifers, stop trying to make a new argument out of nothing.
The important quote:
mlb Wrote:It is pathetic, IMHO, that someone votes based on 1 issue rather than on a whole platform of ideas.
I'm no fan of abortion, but I won't base my vote on one issue.
I split this out since it got away from the original point. My question still stands for all of the "Pro-Choicers". Would you rather die or have a small chance of suceeding in life?
You present it as a win-or-tie option. In that case, i think any rational creature would choose the small chance.
let me ask you - would you rather be born into a devout Muslim family or not at all.
Would you rather be born with massive birth defects or not at all?
Is there any state of being that you could be born into that would not preferable to not being born at all?
I'm glad I was born to loving, middle class, Christian parents in the good old U S of A. But it didn't have to be that way. I could have been born in slums in India. Some were. I could have been born to Osama bin laden. Some were. I could have born with severe facial deformities, or incurable diseases. Some were.
Had you been born to a poor Muslim family in Iraq, you would have essentially no chance of learning the Bible. Given that choice, do you still choose life or non-birth?
It's moot anyway, since none of us were given the choice.And we make choices for others all the time. Ever been faced with signing a DNR or executing one for someone else? Ever had to pull the plug? Ever sat on a death penalty jury? Ever worked as a policeman or fireman?
I really don't want to be involved in a pro-choice vs pro-life debate. People hold their own beliefs, and especially on this board are not willing to listen to other sides (yes, I hold myself in the same category as the others I'm referring to).
As fanatical said, the part that I was truly arguing was the fact that people will vote for a candidate due to their 1 view, even if they have absolutely no business making decisions for the direction of our country. They then complain when congress can't get anything done (although generally blaming the other party), or make dumb decisions while in office (can anybody same Mark Foley?).
When I vote for someone, I look at the whole package. There is no reason to vote based on 1 view point...
mlb Wrote:I really don't want to be involved in a pro-choice vs pro-life debate. People hold their own beliefs, and especially on this board are not willing to listen to other sides (yes, I hold myself in the same category as the others I'm referring to).
As fanatical said, the part that I was truly arguing was the fact that people will vote for a candidate due to their 1 view, even if they have absolutely no business making decisions for the direction of our country. They then complain when congress can't get anything done (although generally blaming the other party), or make dumb decisions while in office (can anybody same Mark Foley?).
When I vote for someone, I look at the whole package. There is no reason to vote based on 1 view point...
Oh, so people have their own beliefs, and you're ok with that. BUT if they ACT on those beliefs, and you disagree with them, then you're NOT ok with that.
That's what's so funny about people who advocate "tolerance". They want everyone to be tolerant,
just like them.
mlb Wrote:I really don't want to be involved in a pro-choice vs pro-life debate. People hold their own beliefs, and especially on this board are not willing to listen to other sides (yes, I hold myself in the same category as the others I'm referring to).
As fanatical said, the part that I was truly arguing was the fact that people will vote for a candidate due to their 1 view, even if they have absolutely no business making decisions for the direction of our country. They then complain when congress can't get anything done (although generally blaming the other party), or make dumb decisions while in office (can anybody same Mark Foley?).
When I vote for someone, I look at the whole package. There is no reason to vote based on 1 view point...
You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
GrayBeard Wrote:You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
Graybeard, honestly, you won't change my viewpoint on the issue, thus I don't feel like debating it here. I have had this discussion many times, I'm one of the few who believe that it is a personal choice. The person who makes the choice will have to meet the maker at some point, if it is against god's will then he/she will do what he/she needs to do at that point.
Dr Torch Wrote:Oh, so people have their own beliefs, and you're ok with that. BUT if they ACT on those beliefs, and you disagree with them, then you're NOT ok with that.
That's what's so funny about people who advocate "tolerance". They want everyone to be tolerant, just like them.
All I said was that someone who votes for a person based on 1 view point is totally missing the boat. I never said you couldn't act on your belief, but after seeing how pathetic ALL aspects of our government is, I think it is painfully obvious that the wrong people continually get elected (and this isn't anti-Bush, he might be doing the best of any of them because he at least says his beliefs, unlike anybody who is elected to congress).
Also, once again, I don't really care about a person's view on abortion. That is not something I will ever deal with (my wife wouldn't have one, I wouldn't let her have one) as I will accept the consequences of having sex :). My point is that people worry too much about what others do in this case, rather than just worrying about themselves.
Abortion should be a very small issue in this country, especially considering we have a huge national debt, a war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (coming soon to Iran and possibly North Korea), and terrorists trying to attack US citizens. I'm much more interested in hearing a candidate's ideas for lowering the national debt than hearing about how he wants to do away with abortion. And, at the end of the day, I doubt abortion will touch your family either (since you are against it). Your view point might be pro-life, but you can make that decision for yourself. You, unfortunately, can not make a decision on where US government tax money goes, or how the war in Iraq is fought, etc. etc. That is where I listen to the candidates, they will be the ones who decide where to spend money (body armor, new equipment, etc.).
Finally, where has this argument about tolerance come from? I'm 100% tolerant of your view point, I think I've made it painfully obvious that I would never vote based on 1 view from a candidate, however. Especially a view that will NEVER affect me or my wife. There comes a time in life where a person needs to make their own decisions, currently the government makes too many for us and they are quickly trying to push more decisions on us... I don't like that, nor will I ever like that.
mlb Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
Graybeard, honestly, you won't change my viewpoint on the issue, thus I don't feel like debating it here. I have had this discussion many times, I'm one of the few who believe that it is a personal choice. The person who makes the choice will have to meet the maker at some point, if it is against god's will then he/she will do what he/she needs to do at that point.
And still, the question remains unanswered.
GrayBeard Wrote:And still, the question remains unanswered.
And still the question remains irrelevant to the point.
Fanatical Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:And still, the question remains unanswered.
And still the question remains irrelevant to the point.
Exactly.
Fanatical Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:And still, the question remains unanswered.
And still the question remains irrelevant to the point.
It is not irrelevant to "HIS" point. The question is directly related to mlb's comments. He had the courage to post the comment, now he should have the courage to answer the question.
GrayBeard Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:And still, the question remains unanswered.
And still the question remains irrelevant to the point.
It is not irrelevant to "HIS" point. The question is directly related to mlb's comments. He had the courage to post the comment, now he should have the courage to answer the question.
Since you absolultely want to know (it isn't relevant to my point, however), it depends on the situation, GB. But, as I've stated above, I don't necessarily know when a fetus becomes congnicent (sp?) of life. I personally don't believe it happens in the first trimester, but I am not up for debate on this issue (it is the same arguments over and over and over, just like religion in general). I would not have an abortion personally, and that is personal choice. That does not necessarily mean it is wrong, however, and I will always believe that. It is a personal decision, plain and simple, and I would never be swayed by a politician just because of which side he falls.
Rather than discussing when a fetus become congnicent of life, lets discuss this:
Would you support abortion in the case of rape?
Child molestation?
Where the mother would die if she gave birth?
Where the baby would be infected with a terminal virus at birth?
All of those seem like valid reasons to have an abortion, IMHO.
Since you either can't remember the actual question or you are just pretending that you don't let me quote it for you....
GrayBeard Wrote:mlb Wrote:Instead we allow our children to go to orphanages that don't offer the love and support one needs to have an above average chance to succeed in life.
Instead, the abortion takes away all chance of that happening. If you were that fetus, would you rather die or have a small chance at suceeding in life? Be honest.
Let me also ask it again....would you rather die or have a small chance at suceeding in life?
Since you either can't read or just want to ignore my answer, here you go GB:
Quote:Since you absolultely want to know (it isn't relevant to my point, however), it depends on the situation, GB.
And, while you are at it, here are some questions you decided to ignore:
Quote:Rather than discussing when a fetus become congnicent of life, lets discuss this:
Would you support abortion in the case of rape?
Child molestation?
Where the mother would die if she gave birth?
Where the baby would be infected with a terminal virus at birth?
All of those seem like valid reasons to have an abortion, IMHO.
Quote:Abortion should be a very small issue in this country, especially considering we have a huge national debt, a war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (coming soon to Iran and possibly North Korea), and terrorists trying to attack US citizens. I'm much more interested in hearing a candidate's ideas for lowering the national debt than hearing about how he wants to do away with abortion. And, at the end of the day, I doubt abortion will touch your family either (since you are against it). Your view point might be pro-life, but you can make that decision for yourself. You, unfortunately, can not make a decision on where US government tax money goes, or how the war in Iraq is fought, etc. etc. That is where I listen to the candidates, they will be the ones who decide where to spend money (body armor, new equipment, etc.).
Can someone point out to me a candidate who simply ran on the fact that they opposed abortion and got elected?
Yes, some people are single issue voters but I would guess the majority are not, hence ranting about people voting on one issue alone is a little pointless based on the fact no candidate runs on just abortion.
mlb Wrote:Since you either can't read or just want to ignore my answer, here you go GB:
Quote:Since you absolultely want to know (it isn't relevant to my point, however), it depends on the situation, GB.
And, while you are at it, here are some questions you decided to ignore:
Quote:Rather than discussing when a fetus become congnicent of life, lets discuss this:
Would you support abortion in the case of rape?
Child molestation?
Where the mother would die if she gave birth?
Where the baby would be infected with a terminal virus at birth?
All of those seem like valid reasons to have an abortion, IMHO.
It depends?? That is your honest answer. In some cases, you would rather die? It really is a cop out answer, but that is pretty much what I expected.
And no, I don't support abortion in any case. There, I took a stand, can you?
mlb Wrote:Would you support abortion in the case of rape?
Child molestation?
Where the mother would die if she gave birth?
Where the baby would be infected with a terminal virus at birth?
All of those seem like valid reasons to have an abortion, IMHO.
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest
6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either mother or child
93% of all abortions are elective and occur for social reasons
If abortion was legal for only the first two reasons, the number of abortions per year would drop from 46 million to about 3 million.
To jump a step beyond the abortion debate, instead of abortion how about a license to reproduce?
I have a great solution (in my mind).
Since everyone wants to let the government make decisions for us (such as the abortion choice, or my right to gamble my money away), lets just let the government license people to have kids. Everyone must be on a birth control at all times unless you have a license to go off of the pill/patch/shot (yes, I know this will piss many of you off since in some religions contraception is a sin).
Qualifications:
A. You must have enough money to support the baby.
B. You must demonstrate the ability to care for you baby. This is tested before you can get the license.
C. Have 2 parents.
D. If you demonstrate the inability to care for the baby then you automatically have your license revoked for X number of years, and you then must go through an even tougher evaluation for future licenses.
E. You must pass a commen sense test for parenting.
What else would we need?
Or, if we wanted, we could have it so that everyone has a free right to have kids, until they demonstrate the inability to care for them. At that point you lose all rights to reproduce...
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Can someone point out to me a candidate who simply ran on the fact that they opposed abortion and got elected?
Yes, some people are single issue voters but I would guess the majority are not, hence ranting about people voting on one issue alone is a little pointless based on the fact no candidate runs on just abortion.
I never said a candidate runs on just 1 issue (abortion). I'm referring to the voters who don't listen to the other view points of a candidate. Like I said, I don't want to hear about his abortion stance, plain and simple. Unfortunately on campaign commercials and other political material it is highlight number 1. That is ridiculous in my mind. Give me something that really effects me and my wife, not something that effects a small minority of our society.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest
6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either mother or child
93% of all abortions are elective and occur for social reasons
If abortion was legal for only the first two reasons, the number of abortions per year would drop from 46 million to about 3 million.
So, would you support it then?
GrayBeard Wrote:mlb Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
Graybeard, honestly, you won't change my viewpoint on the issue, thus I don't feel like debating it here. I have had this discussion many times, I'm one of the few who believe that it is a personal choice. The person who makes the choice will have to meet the maker at some point, if it is against god's will then he/she will do what he/she needs to do at that point.
And still, the question remains unanswered.
As do mine...
OptimisticOwl Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:mlb Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
Graybeard, honestly, you won't change my viewpoint on the issue, thus I don't feel like debating it here. I have had this discussion many times, I'm one of the few who believe that it is a personal choice. The person who makes the choice will have to meet the maker at some point, if it is against god's will then he/she will do what he/she needs to do at that point.
And still, the question remains unanswered.
As do mine...
Sorry 'bout that. Being that you are optimistic, I would have guessed that you would have known my answer. I would most certainly choose life in all the circumstances that you listed. Miracles do happen!
GrayBeard Wrote:It depends?? That is your honest answer. In some cases, you would rather die? It really is a cop out answer, but that is pretty much what I expected.
And no, I don't support abortion in any case. There, I took a stand, can you?
In a case where I will grow up starving to death (only getting fed in school), have no health care, and no support or love, only to die at a very young age, I'm not sure life is worth living. That is why I said it depends on the situation. I gave you specific situations, of which you said you would:
A. Force a woman to carry a baby from most likely the worst moment in her entire life, having a constant reminder of that day. Many people would go crazy from that kind of situation. Many would also go have an illegal abortion, risking her death.
B. Force a child, possibly as young as 8 or 9 years old (it has happened before), to carry a baby through term, from, once again, likely to be the worst moment in their entire life.
C. Choose to kill a mom, possibly as young as 8 or 9 years old, in order to save the fetus which probably hasn't had any brain development to give any quality of life [yet].
D. Choose to infect a baby with a virus that will kill it, possibly within days of birth (who knows what new STDs and viruses will be around in the future).
I'm glad I'm not your kid or wife in those cases, because I cannot even begin to imagine how bad it would be to have to carry around a fetus for 9 months after being molested or raped... the actions were bad enough, but the memories every day for the rest of your life might be even worse!
mlb Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:It depends?? That is your honest answer. In some cases, you would rather die? It really is a cop out answer, but that is pretty much what I expected.
And no, I don't support abortion in any case. There, I took a stand, can you?
In a case where I will grow up starving to death (only getting fed in school), have no health care, and no support or love, only to die at a very young age, I'm not sure life is worth living. That is why I said it depends on the situation. I gave you specific situations, of which you said you would:
A. Force a woman to carry a baby from most likely the worst moment in her entire life, having a constant reminder of that day. Many people would go crazy from that kind of situation. Many would also go have an illegal abortion, risking her death.
B. Force a child, possibly as young as 8 or 9 years old (it has happened before), to carry a baby through term, from, once again, likely to be the worst moment in their entire life.
C. Choose to kill a mom, possibly as young as 8 or 9 years old, in order to save the fetus which probably hasn't had any brain development to give any quality of life [yet].
D. Choose to infect a baby with a virus that will kill it, possibly within days of birth (who knows what new STDs and viruses will be around in the future).
I'm glad I'm not your kid or wife in those cases, because I cannot even begin to imagine how bad it would be to have to carry around a fetus for 9 months after being molested or raped... the actions were bad enough, but the memories every day for the rest of your life might be even worse!
I am also glad that you are not my wife or child.
GrayBeard Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:mlb Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
Graybeard, honestly, you won't change my viewpoint on the issue, thus I don't feel like debating it here. I have had this discussion many times, I'm one of the few who believe that it is a personal choice. The person who makes the choice will have to meet the maker at some point, if it is against god's will then he/she will do what he/she needs to do at that point.
And still, the question remains unanswered.
As do mine...
Sorry 'bout that. Being that you are optimistic, I would have guessed that you would have known my answer. I would most certainly choose life in all the circumstances that you listed. Miracles do happen!
I expected you to choose life in every situation, yes, but I thought the idea would give you pause of being born into a situation in which it is very unlikely your would hear the word of christianity and even less likely that you would be a christian. So you would rather be born a Muslim than than never born. Just a little surprised, this is the proverbial rock and a hard place - no easy answer.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:mlb Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:You are the one that made the statement that I questioned, and now you clam up. Come on man....
Graybeard, honestly, you won't change my viewpoint on the issue, thus I don't feel like debating it here. I have had this discussion many times, I'm one of the few who believe that it is a personal choice. The person who makes the choice will have to meet the maker at some point, if it is against god's will then he/she will do what he/she needs to do at that point.
And still, the question remains unanswered.
As do mine...
Sorry 'bout that. Being that you are optimistic, I would have guessed that you would have known my answer. I would most certainly choose life in all the circumstances that you listed. Miracles do happen!
I expected you to choose life in every situation, yes, but I thought the idea would give you pause of being born into a situation in which it is very unlikely your would hear the word of christianity and even less likely that you would be a christian. So you would rather be born a Muslim than than never born. Just a little surprised, this is the proverbial rock and a hard place - no easy answer.
I believe in a God that still works miracles, so nothing is impossible.
mlb Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest
6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either mother or child
93% of all abortions are elective and occur for social reasons
If abortion was legal for only the first two reasons, the number of abortions per year would drop from 46 million to about 3 million.
So, would you support it then?
I never "support" abortion. However the debate is much different if you're just talking about those two instances. Unfortuantely abortion has become just another form of birth control in this country.
GrayBeard Wrote:My question still stands for all of the "Pro-Choicers". Would you rather die or have a small chance of suceeding in life?
If the choice was
mine then of course I would choose live rather than die.
The problem with abortions and other forms of murder is the person who dies does not have any say in the matter. So then what you have to do is decide which forms of murder are okay and which aren't.
I just find it funny that the pro
lifers can condemn abortion, but support wars where innocents are killed or support the death penalty.
uhmump95 Wrote:I just find it funny that the pro lifers can condemn abortion, but support wars where innocents are killed or support the death penalty.
Wow, straw man much?
1. Support for a war where innocents are harmed
accidentally is not in conflict with a prolife position. Why you say? Because abortion is the willful and deliberate ending of a human life. Collateral damage in a war is not.
2. Support for the death penalty is not in conflict with a prolife position. Why? Becuase the death penalty is punishment for a willful and deliberate murder of another person.
One is accident, the other punishment.
My hope is that one day I can get through an abortion discussion without that pitiful straw man creeping up again. Won't happen though.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Wow, straw man much?
1. Support for a war where innocents are harmed accidentally is not in conflict with a prolife position. Why you say? Because abortion is the willful and deliberate ending of a human life. Collateral damage in a war is not.
2. Support for the death penalty is not in conflict with a prolife position. Why? Becuase the death penalty is punishment for a willful and deliberate murder of another person.
One is accident, the other punishment.
My hope is that one day I can get through an abortion discussion without that pitiful straw man creeping up again. Won't happen though.
If it weren't for the fact that innocent people have been killed due to the death penalty (and then found later to not have been guilty) maybe I could follow your logic...
You all say that god would not want abortions to happen, which is fine, but then would god want humans to kill other humans as an eye for an eye (especially when the bible preaches for forgiveness)? It seems to me that if god wanted someone dead he would find a way to do it himself without humans intervening, such as in a car crash or something of the sort...
Quote:If it weren't for the fact that innocent people have been killed due to the death penalty (and then found later to not have been guilty) maybe I could follow your logic...
Absolutely no different than the war straw man hump stated above.
A prolife position means that I don't advocate the killing of innocent life. If an innocent person is killed via the death penalty I don't condone that, but it doesn't mean that I'm in conflict with supporting the death penalty as a mechanism of punishment for murderers.
Innocent people die in car crashes every day. Are you going to tell me that my logic doesn't bare out since I support the driving of cars as a means to get around?
Quote:You all say that god would not want abortions to happen, which is fine, but then would god want humans to kill other humans as an eye for an eye (especially when the bible preaches for forgiveness)? It seems to me that if god wanted someone dead he would find a way to do it himself without humans intervening, such as in a car crash or something of the sort...
Is there a barn full of hay around here that I missed?
If there is a chance an innocent person could be sentenced to death, as a pro-life person I would think you don't have an option but to be against the death penalty, that is all I'm saying.
But of course, many pro-life people only care about the unborn fetus' life but not the mother's life... as we have seen today. Personally, I can't support that view...
mlb Wrote:If there is a chance an innocent person could be sentenced to death, as a pro-life person I would think you don't have an option but to be against the death penalty, that is all I'm saying.
If there is a chance an innocent person could be killed in a car crash do I not have the option to support people driving cars?
Let's go a step further. If there's even a chance that a person could be convicted of a crime they didn't commit, then I guess I can't support due process and a court of law can I?
Quote:But of course, many pro-life people only care about the unborn fetus' life but not the mother's life... as we have seen today. Personally, I can't support that view...
Straw, straw everywhere! It's a horses feast in here today.
The above reminds me of a great illustration of a straw man I read once.
Person a - I don't think children should run out into busy streets
Person b - Well I think it would be cruel to lock children up all day long away from fresh air.
Another good one. A man and his wife are ordering dinner. As is the custom, his wife tells him what she wants and he orders for her. The waiter arrives and the man says, "My wife will have the cobb salad and a glass of water. I would like the grilled chicken sandwich and a milkshake to drink." The waiter leaves and the wife says to her husband, "What do you mean I'm fat?"
It seems to me that you can't come up with a good response to those situations, thus you have to start yelling "straw man". Sorry bud, as others have pointed out, this isn't a good vs bad situation, as obviously there are going to be unintended consequences to everything that you do... hence the reason why, in my opinion, people should have the right to choose for themselves. They can decide what works for them and what doesn't, isn't that a basis on which this country was founded?
In my opinion, the government should only protect the innocent. That means they don't protect you from yourself... if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, fine. If someone wants to gamble away his money, fine.
The only issue in the abortion debate (when debating with myself) is when a fetus becomes a baby... obviously many people believe it is from conception, while others believe not until some point in the pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that you must make your decision within the first trimester, specifically the first 8 weeks. Simple as that...
mlb Wrote:It seems to me that you can't come up with a good response to those situations, thus you have to start yelling "straw man".
I've explained previous situations you've brought up. You're not bringing up new ones, you're simply modifying arguments that I've already illustrated to be incorrect. But I'll stay specific if you want.
And I noticed you didn't once address the counter examples I used about cars and the justice system as a whole. So a certain pot, meet kettle, dynamic is at play here I think.
My response is the situations you keep coming up with aren't logically sound to begin with. You proceed forward from a premise that I don't grant.
Quote:But of course, many pro-life people only care about the unborn fetus' life but not the mother's life... as we have seen today. Personally, I can't support that view...
Here's why this is a straw man. You carry the argument of, "I don't support abortion," to "I don't care about the mothers life." The two aren't mutually exclusive yet you make them so in an effort to discredit the pro life position.
Example:
Person A - Yeah! The Braves won today.
Person B - Why do you hate the Yankees so much?
Quote:The only issue in the abortion debate (when debating with myself) is when a fetus becomes a baby... obviously many people believe it is from conception, while others believe not until some point in the pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that you must make your decision within the first trimester, specifically the first 8 weeks. Simple as that...
Most people don't have an issue with abortion because it's out of sight, out of mind. You dont' see the baby in the mother's womb, therefore killing it really doesn't affect you that much. A lot easier that way.
mlb Wrote:It seems to me that you can't come up with a good response to those situations, thus you have to start yelling "straw man". Sorry bud, as others have pointed out, this isn't a good vs bad situation, as obviously there are going to be unintended consequences to everything that you do... hence the reason why, in my opinion, people should have the right to choose for themselves. They can decide what works for them and what doesn't, isn't that a basis on which this country was founded?
In my opinion, the government should only protect the innocent. That means they don't protect you from yourself... if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, fine. If someone wants to gamble away his money, fine.
The only issue in the abortion debate (when debating with myself) is when a fetus becomes a baby... obviously many people believe it is from conception, while others believe not until some point in the pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that you must make your decision within the first trimester, specifically the first 8 weeks. Simple as that...
After reading the bolded part above, I must ask how you could condone abortion in any shape or form. There is nothing more innocent that a baby. It has done nothing wrong.
Also, every one of your arguments that ninerfan has pointed out as a straw man has been rebutted by ninerfan, but you just choose to ignore it.
We have hashed this out before and it all ends the same, you can say straw man, but I disagree. They are all the same. The straw comes in because one person wants to ignore information or give more importance to the information that supports their opinion. In my arguments, innocence, guilt and all the other BS that people use to differentiate abortion from the death penalty does not matter, because in actuality the same thing is happening in both situations.
uhmump95 Wrote:We have hashed this out before and it all ends the same, you can say straw man, but I disagree. They are all the same.
No, they really aren't. We don't exist in a vacuum and you can't argue like we do. Every situation is unique.
Quote:The straw comes in because one person wants to ignore information or give more importance to the information that supports their opinion. In my arguments, innocence, guilt and all the other BS that people use to differentiate abortion from the death penalty does not matter, because in actuality the same thing is happening in both situations.
Wow, you just stated that you're arguing a straw man, you know it and don't care. At least you're honest about it.
GrayBeard Wrote:mlb Wrote:It seems to me that you can't come up with a good response to those situations, thus you have to start yelling "straw man". Sorry bud, as others have pointed out, this isn't a good vs bad situation, as obviously there are going to be unintended consequences to everything that you do... hence the reason why, in my opinion, people should have the right to choose for themselves. They can decide what works for them and what doesn't, isn't that a basis on which this country was founded?
In my opinion, the government should only protect the innocent. That means they don't protect you from yourself... if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, fine. If someone wants to gamble away his money, fine.
The only issue in the abortion debate (when debating with myself) is when a fetus becomes a baby... obviously many people believe it is from conception, while others believe not until some point in the pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that you must make your decision within the first trimester, specifically the first 8 weeks. Simple as that...
After reading the bolded part above, I must ask how you could condone abortion in any shape or form. There is nothing more innocent that a baby. It has done nothing wrong.
Also, every one of your arguments that ninerfan has pointed out as a straw man has been rebutted by ninerfan, but you just choose to ignore it.
I knew you would bold that and bring it up, hence the reason why I qualified it below that. The discussion is WHEN a fetus becomes a baby. At that point it should be given the full protection of the law, but not until then. That is where I am torn and where I have always been torn.
The bolded part also was in response to a point that ninerfan1 was attempting to make about innocent people dying in car crashes. That is some risk involved with everything you do, thus at some point the government can't protect ourselves from ourselves.
The issue about the justice system is a fine and dandy, but my point is the death penalty, not just going to jail for life. There is the chance that the evidence appears if you just have life in prison, thus allowing you your freedom. Once you are dead you can't do that (obviously). That is why I believe the death penalty should be abolished, you remove any chance of that person getting their freedom if new evidence that proves your innocence appears.
Finally, the point about the mother vs the child. At some point you have to make the decision, that is my point. It appears to me that you value the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother since you said you don't support an abortion in that situation... that is all i was getting at.
mlb Wrote:Finally, the point about the mother vs the child. At some point you have to make the decision, that is my point. It appears to me that you value the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother since you said you don't support an abortion in that situation... that is all i was getting at.
Actually, here's what you said.
Quote:But of course, many pro-life people only care about the unborn fetus' life but not the mother's life... as we have seen today. Personally, I can't support that view...
And I never said that I value the fetus' life over the mother. I said I never "support" abortion. Meaning I'll never be all for it, or fine with it etc.
My wife is 4 months pregnant right now and if she went into labor and the doctor said she could only save my wife by aborting the baby and I had to choose, I would choose my wife. Am I ok with the fact that my child had to be killed, no I'm not. And my decision would have nothing to do with whether the fetus was a baby at that point. To me, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. It would be my choice.
That's why I said if you strictly have abortion for rape/incest or life of the mother the debate shifts dramatically. I'll never support abortion, however in those instances it would have to be accepted, by me at least, as a necessary evil.
mlb Wrote:Finally, the point about the mother vs the child. At some point you have to make the decision, that is my point. It appears to me that you value the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother since you said you don't support an abortion in that situation... that is all i was getting at.
So with that being the case, everyone pregnancy should end in an abortion, because there is always a chance that the pregnancy could end in death for the mother. Now I am not advocating that, but your argument for abortion could push the balance to that extreme.
Another point about this, is that Dr's make mistakes. I have friends who's mothers were told to have an abortion because their life was at risk. Guess what, the mothers in all cases that I know, lived and were just fine. I have a cousin that was told not to have either of her babies because she wouldn't live through the pregnancy. Her kids are now between 5 & 10 and she is enjoying every day with them.
I'm sorry, but I really think you are making points that have no real point when you break it down.
Graybeard - what do you think of the morning after pill? Is that OK? If not, why not?
What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?
Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?
OptimisticOwl Wrote:Graybeard - what do you think of the morning after pill? Is that OK? If not, why not?
What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?
Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?
About the fruitful and multiplying in the Bible...I beleive that was said to Noah, but I could be wrong, after the flood, thus he and his family needed to be some kind of fruitful! I am all for abstinence before marriage, but after marriage abstinence is only to be mutually agreed upon by both husband and wife and only for a time of prayer and focus on the Lord.
I have no problem with Birth Control, but then if the BC fails, I plan to keep the resulting baby.
About the morning after pill, in principle I am against it, but to be quite honest with you, I know very little about it, so my opinion is much less than educated.
Did I answer all your questions?
OptimisticOwl Wrote:What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?
I would say that first, abstinence prevents the possibility of a new life coming to be, abortion kills one that already is. So the two aren't the same. Abortion doesn't deny life, it simply denies it the ability to continue.
Second I would say many people do believe that they should have as many kids as they happen to be blessed with. Nothing wrong with that though I never see it mandated in the bible.
Quote:Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?
It was a command to Adam and Eve or Noah I think, who were tasked to populate the earth. It's not an overall mandate to all followers of God. If it were then God would have had a problem with the fact that Paul was never married. Yet both Jesus and Paul said there was nothing wrong with being single.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:uhmump95 Wrote:We have hashed this out before and it all ends the same, you can say straw man, but I disagree. They are all the same.
No, they really aren't. We don't exist in a vacuum and you can't argue like we do. Every situation is unique.
Quote:The straw comes in because one person wants to ignore information or give more importance to the information that supports their opinion. In my arguments, innocence, guilt and all the other BS that people use to differentiate abortion from the death penalty does not matter, because in actuality the same thing is happening in both situations.
Wow, you just stated that you're arguing a straw man, you know it and don't care. At least you're honest about it.
I think I am saying that I am removing the straw from my analysis and bringing this discussion down to the basics of the action which is "One human being taking the life of another human being". IMO the straw used to differentiate one action from another when it comes to abortion and the death penalty are irrelevant, it is still the same action.