A civil debate on the abortion issue

[Dacke]

It’s true. I don’t believe they are either sincere or well meaning. The fact is, they don’t care if they abort a growing developing human. It’s all about THEM.

And so it should be. One should only act for oneself and not try to impose one's own beliefs and judgements onto others. I thought this was supposed to be the Conservative viewpoint, but what do I know?

As far as I am concerned, both Republicans and Democrats agree on most things most of the time. When it comes to economic choice, Democrats are anti-choice and when it comes to personal choice, Republicans are anti.choice. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro-altruism and have a highly collectivistic view of society and both offer statist solutions on how to best organise society.

The point I am trying to make is that both care too little about themsleves and waaay too much about others such as "womyn" or "the unbornz".

 

[dave8383]

I look for the Democrats to go extinct.

See how confused you are.

 

[Mashmont]

And so it should be. One should only act for oneself and not try to impose one's own beliefs and judgements onto others. I thought this was supposed to be the Conservative viewpoint, but what do I know?

As far as I am concerned, both Republicans and Democrats agree on most things most of the time. When it comes to economic choice, Democrats are anti-choice and when it comes to personal choice, Republicans are anti.choice. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro-altruism and have a highly collectivistic view of society and both offer statist solutions on how to best organise society.

The point I am trying to make is that both care too little about themsleves and waaay too much about others such as "womyn" or "the unbornz".

It’s about protecting the lives of others, which is a hallmark of both conservatism and Christianity.

 

[Mashmont]

Some facts. You and your ilk are pro birth, not pro life.

Chittister isn’t a nun in good standing with the RCC. She had been censured because her views conflict with church teaching. Conservatives are prolife all the way. Aborting kids or making them wards of the state like the left wants is decidedly anti-life.

 

[OceanBlues1]

It’s true. I don’t believe they are either sincere or well meaning. The fact is, they don’t care if they abort a growing developing human. It’s all about THEM.

That's right, it IS all about them, as it should be when it comes to women making our own choices about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It's each woman's life that will be affected by pregnancy, not to mention the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth if she continues it. So it is plain common sense that only the woman who is pregnant, each woman, should have the right and the authority to decide for herself whether or not to continue the pregnancy and give birth.

 

[Dacke]

It’s about protecting the lives of others, which is a hallmark of both conservatism and Christianity.

Ah, Christianity. Of course. Letting religion rule the land - The hallmark of the Declaration of Independence, the epitome of Americanness. The Consti... Wait what?

It is not at all "concern for others". It is a compromise where the concern for the pregnant woman is sacrificed for the concern for the unborn human. In a sense, it is sacrifice life for nothingness and how that can be moral by anyone's standards really is beyond me.

 

[OceanBlues1]

That’s absurd. The RCC has voiced opposition to abortion for centuries.

So what. The RCC doesn't make the laws in the United States, and thank goodness for that.

 

[Mashmont]

That's right, it IS all about them, as it should be when it comes to women making our own choices about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It's each woman's life that will be affected by pregnancy, not to mention the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth if she continues it. So it is plain common sense that only the woman who is pregnant, each woman, should have the right and the authority to decide for herself whether or not to continue the pregnancy and give birth.

No. A woman’s convenience doesn’t supersede the life of another human being. That is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be said.
.

 

[Mashmont]

Ah, Christianity. Of course. Letting religion rule the land - The hallmark of the Declaration of Independence, the epitome of Americanness. The Consti... Wait what?

It is not at all "concern for others". It is a compromise where the concern for the pregnant woman is sacrificed for the concern for the unborn human. In a sense, it is sacrifice life for nothingness and how that can be moral by anyone's standards really is beyond me.

You’re putting a woman’s convenience ahead of the LIFE of another human being. That is so obviously wrong.

 

[OceanBlues1]

No. A woman’s convenience doesn’t supersede the life of another human being. That is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be said.

Yes. As I previously stated, it is each woman's life that will be affected by pregnancy, not to mention the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth if she continues it.

So it is plain common sense that only the woman who is pregnant, each woman, should have the right and the authority to decide for herself whether or not to continue the pregnancy and give birth. If you are not the woman who is pregnant, it isn't your decision. Simple as that.

 

[vegas giants]

You’re putting a woman’s convenience ahead of the LIFE of another human being. That is so obviously wrong.

Not her convenience....her life. Pregnancy can kill you

 

[OceanBlues1]

You’re putting a woman’s convenience ahead of the LIFE of another human being. That is so obviously wrong.

No, what's obviously wrong is this "pro-life" idea that a woman should be forced to stay pregnant and give birth against her will. Which is exactly what happens when abortion is legally banned.

 

[Dacke]

You’re putting a woman’s convenience ahead of the LIFE of another human being. That is so obviously wrong.

You are the one putting a woman's individual rights ahead of a non-human's life. Women are not sacrificial-animals.

In reality, abortion is not a compromise between the life of x and the life of y. The only life involved in the context of abortion is that of the pregnant woman's. Her convenience is all that matters.

This whole "convenience argument" is another thing Leftists use too - "Oh, you don't want to pay taxes because you just want to keep your money to buy yachts for your own convenience!" or "Omg, you just think of your own convience, think of the climate!" It is an absolutely bogus, altruistic plead to emotion and my response to it is; YES! Only thing that matters is your own convenience.

 

[weaver2]

No. A woman’s convenience doesn’t supersede the life of another human being. That is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be said.
.

So what is the alternative to legal abortion? Making it illegal drives it underground where you don't have any control over it at all, and if some historical statistics are right abortions would increase. is that what you envision: illegal abortions available in every city and town expanding the number of abortions.?

What are your plans for reducing abortion?

 

[weaver2]

Chittister isn’t a nun in good standing with the RCC. She had been censured because her views conflict with church teaching. Conservatives are prolife all the way. Aborting kids or making them wards of the state like the left wants is decidedly anti-life.

Sr Chittister isn't a nun in good standing with the Church? Then there is something seriously wrong with the Church not Sr. Chittister. She is pro-life all the way in a way the conservative Christian men are not!!!

 

[Mashmont]

So what. The RCC doesn't make the laws in the United States, and thank goodness for that.

That wasn't the point. My post was in response to Felis Leo who said abortion was fine with everybody until the evangelicals objected in 1973.

 

[Mashmont]

Yes. As I previously stated, it is each woman's life that will be affected by pregnancy, not to mention the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth if she continues it.

So it is plain common sense that only the woman who is pregnant, each woman, should have the right and the authority to decide for herself whether or not to continue the pregnancy and give birth. If you are not the woman who is pregnant, it isn't your decision. Simple as that.

The view I have, that life supersedes convenience will be the law of the land someday, because it is the right and moral view, and morality ALWAYS wins in the end.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Not her convenience....her life. Pregnancy can kill you.

Exactly. Which is why only the woman who is pregnant should have the right to decide whether or not to continue it.

 

[OceanBlues1]

You are the one putting a woman's individual rights ahead of a non-human's life. Women are not sacrificial animals.

That's right, we're not. Nor are women objects of reproduction (incubator, oven, etc.) for the state or church.

 

[OceanBlues1]

The view I have, that life supersedes convenience will be the law of the land someday, because it is the right and moral view, and morality ALWAYS wins in the end.

Wow. So according to you, your so-called "right and moral view" supersedes the lives of women. Got it. :roll: I'll just go on hoping for your continuing disappointment in that respect.

 

[Mashmont]

Sr Chittister isn't a nun in good standing with the Church? Then there is something seriously wrong with the Church not Sr. Chittister. She is pro-life all the way in a way the conservative Christian men are not!!!

She has condemned the church for censuring nuns who called for legalization of abortion, and has taken other positions against church teaching. Church teaching is perfect. She has gone against that.

 

[southwest88]

Roles & cases

What we agreed upon was that humanity of the unborn is indisputable. THAT should be the basis for the law, not some meaningless nebulous undefinable nonsensical term. If you think SCOTUS members are objective and not partisan, you are naive.

meaningless nebulous undefinable nonsensical term - So, you're a student of the law? You can always try to intervene in the case - but Roe was a long time ago. Failing that, you can try to amend the Constitution. But that takes a while too.

SCOTUS members are objective and not partisan - The SC that held in Roe was mostly Republican, & had been appointed by Republican presidents. The task of the SC isn't to be partisan, it's to determine what's Constitutionally permissible in law.

 

[weaver2]

She has condemned the church for censuring nuns who called for legalization of abortion, and has taken other positions against church teaching. Church teaching is perfect. She has gone against that.

Cheers to a smart and sensible nun. May her tribe increase.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The left is malicious, and only the left. One only has to google the many instances on college campuses in which the left physically and sometimes violently interrupted pro-life rallies. The reverse never happens.

It's not the "left" that has killed people and bombed clinics in the name of "life"... and I'm not even on the left.

 

[weaver2]

It’s true. I don’t believe they are either sincere or well meaning. The fact is, they don’t care if they abort a growing developing human. It’s all about THEM.

You are very long and tedious about abortion and women being immoral but nobody has seen any alternative to legal abortion or immoral women from you. How about you post what you think are intelligent alternatives to 800,000 unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.