Again, it's a little thing called the constitution.
Right, when are we going to start following it?
Maybe when the abortion banners stop insisting we disregard it
that would be about the same time the baby killers stop disregarding it as well, no?
The Moral Fascists are so deluded they think abortion is illegal
How do you know that you cannot take care of the child and there is the option of adoption. How about not having sex in the first place?
What's wrong with putting the baby up for adoption?
With any action comes good or bad consequences except in the liberal world where there are never bad consequences for any action. Never said a thing about sex being bad just that there are consequences good or bad, accept them.
Right or wrong is not a matter of popular opinion. That's relativistic twaddle.
Of course this is very sad and no one knew it was coming. Putting the baby up for adoption was not mentioned as one of the options available in the post I responded to and yet many women exercise that option every day.
Yes, I actually did. You're trying to create a revaluation. You're statement is skewed and it couldn't have the support of Nietzsche, nevermind what it needs. Determining having kids is selfish, following that strain of logic, anything and everything you do can be considered selfish, it is absurd to even go down that path. It is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal to a completely absurd line of reasoning.
No? and where do you believe laws stem from?
Morality.
Agreed upon and codified.
I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.
for one your argument is skewed because, blacks, mixed, gays, et al. are allowed to live, and are protected under the law to do so,that's the argument. Further, in a free society, you've got to allow, so long as all people are equal in the eyes of the government, you must allow discrimination between others as it is a matter of free association.
Women have equal rights, the unborn do not. Re: your second point....no one is forcing you to associate with anyone...if you dont want to have an abortion, or dont want to associate with anyone that had one...then dont.
You do not have a right to offend. Certainly they do. They're a black spot on society. I live in society, no? Correct, so much so that they should be as far removed from my community as my fellow members of the community see fit.
Correct, there is no right to offend but there is no right prohibiting it either. Nor is there any Constitutional protection against it. How are women who have abortions a 'black spot on society?' What have their actions wrought in society? And how do you even know if/who have had abortions in your community? If you have to ask, research, look for statistics...and that's the ONLY way you know...then apparently there are no other repercussions to your life.
Correct, that is why social issues must be localized. Not one size fits all blanket over the nation.
Sorry, what social issues are 'localized?' We are a diverse society, that is what gives our nation strength. That is what built our nation. So please: tell me what social issues we localize in our society? Honestly, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.
Correct, as you aren't entitled to set up little death camps where ever you please.
Well how would you even know about it? It does not affect you and you would have to go out of your way to learn about it. If a CHILD goes missing or is abused, the community knows...it misses the child, it sees a child in pain, etc etc etc. How are abortions affecting you?
As a Federal law, I believe it is a mistake, as a State law I believe it is a mistake -- either for or against.
Yes, I know.
The interesting thing here is that for eons counties in certain states have been known to be "Dry". That is, no liquor can be bought or sold within county lines. No one ever seems to be up in arms about this, but yet if you try to use the same principles with abortion, allowing or disallowing something as egregious as this to fall within the county level of government's purview than everyone wants to talk about choice, and it is a great oppression that can't be allowed. (notice I was making a comparative argument over the principles and not abortion v. liquor)
What? I went to college in PA and they were fighting over dry counties and getting rid of them. And people here in WA St just recently overturned the control of "state liquor stores.' But drinking alcohol is not a Constitutional right. The right to life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness...for those already born....is.
It is a case where you want to have your ideology spread far and wide, not taking into account other people's attitudes, feelings, and beliefs.
So again, you are just as much trying to force your attitude and beliefs on others as you claim that others are doing to you. Which is why this and every other social issue must be localized.
Nope, it's called FREEDOM. People are free to do what they want within the confines of the law, most importantly not infringing on the rights of others. YOUR beliefs offend many....should someone be able to tell you to move somewhere else because they dont like what you believe? If you would like to live somewhere where the govt has control over people's PERSONAL LIVES....there are a few other countries you can check out.
I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.
I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.
I have twin sisters who are adopted (at birth). They knew their mother before that crack whore died of AIDS. THey know their brother and sisters and maintain a relationship with them. They are infinitely better off with my family than her...they were born when she was in jail and ALL of her children have physical and mental issues from her being on drugs.
They were all fortunate to be adopted, since all had issues. But there are many families that want children that cannot have them....do we need MORE unwanted kids? My sisters' mother was SO irresponsible she couldnt even bother to get abortions.
Believe me...pregnancy and not giving a ****...continuing to smoke,drink, do drugs....THAT is irresponsible. Not abortion.
I have twin sisters who are adopted (at birth). They knew their mother before that crack whore died of AIDS. THey know their brother and sisters and maintain a relationship with them. They are infinitely better off with my family than her...they were born when she was in jail and ALL of her children have physical and mental issues from her being on drugs.
They were all fortunate to be adopted, since all had issues. But there are many families that want children that cannot have them....do we need MORE unwanted kids? My sisters' mother was SO irresponsible she couldnt even bother to get abortions.
Believe me...pregnancy and not giving a ****...continuing to smoke,drink, do drugs....THAT is irresponsible. Not abortion.
Abortion is absolutely irresponsible.
It is the stopping of a human beating heart every time.
See, there the conflict is again.That 'human beating heart' may stop thru miscarriage anyway...you have no way of knowing if it would come to term.
Irresponsibility is having a child that other people need to pay their own $$ to help you support. Abortion is a very responsible choice. It can enable a woman to continue an education, develop a job into a career, better care for children she already has....all things that are responsible and allow her to contribute more to society.
It is one of a few responsible choices and a woman has the right to choose what's right for her. Not for something that might not ever even be born.
See, there the conflict is again.
Should it have the chance? Or should the women have the chance? Which is more important?
Really, i suppose, it depends on the women in question. But....how far do you carry that? Til birth? Til some semi-arbitrary stage of fetus development? And what criteria do you place on allowing abortions after that? Whim? Mother's life? Nothing?
I've said it before (in other threads) - this issue will only be resolved when an option or options exist which give both the developing child and the mother equal freedom and chance at life.
The conflict I see is between the unborn child's rights and the mother's rights.I'm missing the conflict.
Is it a difficult choice? I'm sure it is...but it's made by the individual in her own best interests...SHE, who is already part of society and surviving, is already the best bet for contributing to that society. Only she knows what is best for her. I mean, if her life is in danger from cancer and she chooses to not have chemo to save her fetus...that is her right too, correct? Or if she and her husband already have 3 kids and cant make ends meet....difficult choice but still right for them. I mean...she may lose her job if she has to take time off for a pregnancy. Or if an infant means she will not be able to finish college and her entire future is impacted....never reaching her potential to contribute to society?
Strangers and the govt do not know what is best here. Only that woman does.
I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.
But not all immoral things are against the law. For example, many types of lying and cheating. It is up to individuals to act or not act, it's called free will and even God granted us that.
Infringing on a woman's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is also against the law unless she is convicted of a crime. Getting pregnant is not a crime. You have no right to tell her what to do with her body. To do so you have to infringe on her right to privacy to do so.
And you still cannot explain why our society recognizes allowing termination of a fetus to save a mother's life or to protect her from mental anguish in cases of rape or incest...but that would NEVER be the case with an individual that was already born.
What is the difference there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?