GernBlansten Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 To me, abortion is always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable. I feel so strongly about this that I would never get one myself. Even if I could. I just don't think is workable to criminalize it. So many unintended consequences. And with new drugs, nearly unenforceable. Think RU486. Ain't it bizarre that the most fervent pro-lifers (save the Catholics) support killing the abortionists and mothers? And ain't it bizarre that those same people, Catholics included, only support the least effective method to avoid abortions, abstinence only education? Think Bristol Palin. I don't like government deciding what people do with what the government considers an unviable tissue mass. Once the government decides it has rights, I might reconsider. I'm with OGE. Put your efforts into making it rare and unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "I feel so strongly about this that I would never get one myself. Even if I could." Gern, I hope you have better luck with that stance than I did. Before we were married, the wife and I agreed that our feelings were that if we ever had an "oops" pregnancy, we would find a way to fit that child in our lives, no question about it. However, when it came down to a choice between an unplanned pregnancy and treatment for her cancer, we chose the treatment, in an attempt to save her life. Never say never. Circumstances have a way of coming around to bite you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sir I will go out on a limb and say I will NEVER murder someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The point Christians are makin' with respect to abstinence isn't a public policy one, eh? It's a personal moral one. Churches aren't governments; their primary role is educating and inspirin' folks on personal ethical choices. I can't see anything at all wrong with tellin' young girls and women that sex is best when shared exclusively with someone yeh love in marriage. That seems to be a worthy thing to teach, eh? A bit like da Scout Law. Trustworthy means more than "don't lie". It also means livin' honorably in positive ways. Similarly bein' moral means more than "don't commit abortion". It also means show responsibility, self-control, and commitment. Nuthin' inconsistent or inappropriate about punishing bad acts, but also teaching and tryin' to inspire good acts. As for da punishin' part, seems the most logical person to prosecute for a medical abortion is the doctor, eh? He/she is the one profiting from the act. Seems like the self-mutilation abortions of the despondent teen are better off handled by confinin' to psychiatric care for a while. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The woman is at least an accomplice to the murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 To me, abortion is always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable. Unavoidable? This isn't like an auto accident! How is it unavoidable? Clump of cells, Lisabob? We are all a clump of cells! And the law doesn't distinguish at what stage of pregnancy! If a pregnant women is shot & killed & her fetus dies, too, the shooter can be prosecuted for TWO murders! One for the women & one for the clump of cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Ed, see DanKroh's post on why abortions are sometimes unavoidable. Beavah, you are correct that the proper role of Churches is to guide their flock to what they consider a moral high ground. However, they cross the line when they lobby to have their morality legislated on the greater public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Ed's point emphasizes a troubling problem with our inability to assign a 'line' in development at which time the central government takes over the woman's life. The concept of 'viability' that currently is the basis for some statutes is not well-defined because viability varies on a case-by-case basis - and as technology improves, viability moves to earlier and earlier times in development. For the time-being, viability is imperfect but it is what some of us have. If a state did categorize abortion as murder then TheScout would be correct. Not only should the woman be prosecuted along with the doctor (the same as an accomplice in an armed robbery in which people are killed) everyone else who even knew about it should be charged with something, perhaps accessory before the fact or conspiracy to commit. I'm sure these details would come easily. And since some popular types of birth control also terminate pregnancies, using a definition in which the beginning of life occurs at fertilization, those should be outlawed and practitioners prosecuted as well. Never happen. Laws that actually addressed these thing would be thrown out, result in a legal and medical morass, or never be written in the first place. Every still-birth, every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a possible homicide. 'The Pill' would be viewed as more dangerous than crystal meth...prosecutions and punishments pursued accordingly, especially for out-of-state visitors to family members or on vacation. All consistent with 'life at conception' and 'abortion is murder'. While I hope we never change our government to a theocracy run by the Catholic Church, I do recognize that the church is consistent in its opposition not only to abortion but also to nearly every means of birth control. I also note with irony that some posters here who claim support for personal freedom at the same time support forceful intervention by a central government in these most personal decisions. I see hypocrisy. I take some satisfaction in the prospect that if the Catholic Church is as ineffective an influence in the lives of Italians, for the time-being at least, it will probably be as ineffective in this country. Better to take the approach that OGE proposed. Still imperfect, but at least an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think it is disingenuous to call such a position hypocrisy. If one thinks abortion is murder the government has a clear right to deter murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 " Sir I will go out on a limb and say I will NEVER murder someone." TheScout, I really truly wish you good luck with that. I really pray you never have to chose between the children you would happily welcome into the world and into your life, and the woman you love with all your heart and soul. I hope you never have to hold her hand while she makes that decision, either, or while she fights the pain of dying from cancer. Meanwhile, sir, I will go out on a limb and say I will NEVER call a woman fighting for her life from cancer a murderer. Good day to you, sir.(This message has been edited by DanKroh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "I think it is disingenuous to call such a position hypocrisy." That's your opinion. But just in case you thought it was about YOU, while you're savoring the fungal taste of your own hoof, I'll make it a little clearer. Ever since you wrote that you think states should be able to enslave their citizens, I have not considered you to be a champion of personal liberty. In that, at least, you are consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 DanKroh, murder is murder however you wish to paint it. Packsaddle, there is a big difference on what states have (had) the right to do under the Constitution and what we think they should do (slavery for example). As a supporter of states rights I support the right of states to do many things that I disagree with. Anyway your premise is silly. Black slaves were not citizens and I would accord a free baby rights a slave did not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Boyce Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I agree that abortion is murder and must be actively prohibited by law. But it is in my book the murder of human potentiality, which we must deeply cherish because we value our basic humanity and human integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "Black slaves were not citizens and I would accord a free baby rights a slave did not have." Like I said, consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I care for little about the "rights" of anothers property. It is all in the way you look at it. I am quite sure you wouldn't have given a damn about the rights of the slaveholders. I will support the right of an American slaveholder over an African slave anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now