Who's a Christian, Catholic, etc.. pro- choice supporter (1 Viewer)

[Mixed View]

Just want to see what the religious people have to say about this thread. Especially the ones who are pro-choice. Just give me a yes or no with a small explaination.

 

[Blue Hobgoblin]

I personally don't like abortion, but I don't think me or the government who don't know the situations of women who want abortions should be pushing our morality on them. I fing abortion repulsive, but I don't think it's something th government should be involved in.

 

[anomaly]

Just want to see what the religious people have to say about this thread. Especially the ones who are pro-choice. Just give me a yes or no with a small explaination.

I'm pro-choice simply because I don't want a bunch of rich, mostly white, and mostly male, people telling a bunch of women what they can or can't do.

And may I say that your signature is perhaps the funniest thing I've read this week! I suppose only 'God's party' would allow the killing of almost 20,000 innocent Iraqis (God hates Arabs? Hmmm, never knew that)!

 

[stephan]

Blue Hobgoblin,
I can understand where you're coming from, but let me ask you, if the government shouldn't impose morality regarding innocent children, why should it impose morality regarding the protection of anyone's lives?

 

[stephan]

anamoly,
Speaking of rich, white males, it is the rich white male doctors who don't inform woman of the severe health risks of abortion, nor do they go out of their way to show a woman an ultrasound. Why do you think that is? Their is a lot of money made off of the exploitation of women.

Also, I noticed you mention the killing of 20,000 Iraqis. How come you didn't mention how many Iraqis Saddam has killed?

 

[ShamMol]

Blue Hobgoblin,
I can understand where you're coming from, but let me ask you, if the government shouldn't impose morality regarding innocent children, why should it impose morality regarding the protection of anyone's lives?

Ok here is the problem, we can't possibly rebut the fact you think that a fetus who cannot conciously think is a child. We can argue till we both turn blue and neither of us will change our minds or anyone else's mind. But from a straight legal perspective, you are completely wrong. The government technically is protecting a woman's life by allowing her to have an abortion because it is her right (this is theoretical and legal-not moral). You also brought up the Iraqis the regime killed. Fine, I agree that is important and horrible, but unfortunately, we had nothing to do with it, we had something to do with the 20,000 deaths though.

And onto the saftey of abortions. In countries where abortions are illegal, many women die because they are forced to have backalley abortions which are extremely unsafe. In comparision, there is basically no risk that a woman would die from having an abortion in countries where it is legal and where clinics perform the operation in a sterilized area. Where is your proof about an ultrasound? If a woman wants an ultrasound, she can go into a doctor and get one, there is nothing preventing her from doing that. If she wants an abortion, she can have one; if she wants an ultrasound, she can have one-that simple.

 

[Schweddy]

Speaking of rich, white males, it is the rich white male doctors who don't inform woman of the severe health risks of abortion

Are you saying that only white male doctors who are guilty and are abortion doctors?
That is a definative, are you sure about that?

Welcome to Debate Politics!

 

[stephan]

ShamMol,
Do you honestly believe a child isn't a person, even as low as six months, even though they many times survive the birth process when born prematurely? Do you really condone the pain the child has in the partial birth abortion process? Why does the mother's life trumps the child--do you believe that certain groups of people are superior over others?

More people were being killed under Saddam than by us. So, the net effect is that they are better off being liberated.

 

[shuamort]

Do you really condone the pain the child has in the partial birth abortion process?

There is no such medical process called "partial birth abortion". I think you're actually referring to the intact dilation and extraction process.

 

[stephan]

shuamort,
You are diverting from what it really is to what some choose to call it. We are not debating sematics, but the actual process. The definition that you gave me says:

"A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is PARTIALLY DELIVERED through the cervix before being extracted."

 

[shuamort]

shuamort,
You are diverting from what it really is to what some choose to call it. We are not debating sematics, but the actual process. The definition that you gave me says:

"A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is PARTIALLY DELIVERED through the cervix before being extracted."

Omission doesn't win you points. You "forgot":Not in technical use.

 

[stephan]

shuamort,
You still haven't addressed the substance of the issue.

 

[shuamort]

shuamort,
You still haven't addressed the substance of the issue.

And what's the substance of the issue?

 

[ShamMol]

ShamMol,
Do you honestly believe a child isn't a person, even as low as six months, even though they many times survive the birth process when born prematurely? Do you really condone the pain the child has in the partial birth abortion process? Why does the mother's life trumps the child--do you believe that certain groups of people are superior over others?

More people were being killed under Saddam than by us. So, the net effect is that they are better off being liberated.

At six months, or a little before, i think 5, is when they can conciously think, that is when a fetus technically becomes a child in my eyes. So, yes, that is when it is child in my eyes. I didn't bring up the life of the mother, but it is obvious to me-a mother is already living and there is no reason we should make her commit suicide just so something she is carrying can come into the world. So, if I gave you a gun and said shoot yourself...essentially the same thing there. Great, so in the long time he ruled, he killed more...but in the short time we have been there...get the point?

Give me some credible evidence as to other stuff and I will answer gladly (partial birth, etc.)

 

[stephan]

ShamMol,
Thanks, you have answered my question as to whether you believe in superior races.
"just so something she is carrying can come into the world." Utter bigotry.

 

[ShamMol]

ShamMol,
Thanks, you have answered my question as to whether you believe in superior races.
"just so something she is carrying can come into the world." Utter bigotry.

That isn't bigotry, its common sense. Something that isn't alive yet technically for something that is...doesn't sound like a fair trade. And anyways, legally, there has to be an allowance for the health of the mother, so your point is mute.

Actually, I could call you a bigot under the definition of bigotry from dictionary.com

big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

But hey, I won't. And btw, don't see in that exact definition where it says I am a bigot...

 

[Fantasea]

Ok here is the problem, we can't possibly rebut the fact you think that a fetus who cannot conciously think is a child. We can argue till we both turn blue and neither of us will change our minds or anyone else's mind. But from a straight legal perspective, you are completely wrong. The government technically is protecting a woman's life by allowing her to have an abortion because it is her right (this is theoretical and legal-not moral). You also brought up the Iraqis the regime killed. Fine, I agree that is important and horrible, but unfortunately, we had nothing to do with it, we had something to do with the 20,000 deaths though.

And onto the saftey of abortions. In countries where abortions are illegal, many women die because they are forced to have backalley abortions which are extremely unsafe. In comparision, there is basically no risk that a woman would die from having an abortion in countries where it is legal and where clinics perform the operation in a sterilized area. Where is your proof about an ultrasound? If a woman wants an ultrasound, she can go into a doctor and get one, there is nothing preventing her from doing that. If she wants an abortion, she can have one; if she wants an ultrasound, she can have one-that simple.

That's right. If the expectant mother doesn't want the kid, she can just trash it. The pile in the US since Roe v. Wade is nearly fifty million high. Does anyone care?

 

[26 X World Champs]

That's right. If the expectant mother doesn't want the kid, she can just trash it. The pile in the US since Roe v. Wade is nearly fifty million high. Does anyone care?

That's 50 million LEGAL abortions.....I care, and I applaud Roe V. Wade

 

[Fantasea]

That's 50 million LEGAL abortions.....I care, and I applaud Roe V. Wade

Aren't you the guy who was just moaning about how terrible it would be if you lost your son before he had a chance to have a family? And how it would ruin your whole life?

Well, there are fifty million of these sad cases. And I'll bet you're against the death penalty for persons convicted of a capital crime. I think you use the term hypocritical quite often in your posts, too.

You say you applaud Roe v. Wade. Have you even read it?

 

[ShamMol]

Aren't you the guy who was just moaning about how terrible it would be if you lost your son before he had a chance to have a family? And how it would ruin your whole life?

Well, there are fifty million of these sad cases. And I'll bet you're against the death penalty for persons convicted of a capital crime. I think you use the term hypocritical quite often in your posts, too.

You say you applaud Roe v. Wade. Have you even read it?

I actually have read it. The woman's right to privacy is based upon the combination of four of our amendments (and forgive me if i am wrong, its been a few years)-1, 5, 9, and 14 (and I knew that you weren't talking to me). The problem with that argument that I see is that anti-abortion people see life as beginning at conception and with pro-choice people feeling it begins...well, all over the place, 3 months, 4, etc. The fact is that if you feel that way, another person feels the exact opposite and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. There are to use your exact words "50 million of these [] cases." And there have been because it was legally permissable. Anything that I consider living, I don't think should be killed. Period. And my view is that fetuses can be considered living is when they start conciously thinking, so if that is hypocritical...please tell me.

 

[Fantasea]

I actually have read it.

Excellent. Not very many who debate the question have. Please tell me your understanding of Section IX B, paragraph 2. This, as you know, is the pivotal paragraph written by Justice Harry Blackmun. If you wish to refresh your memory, you can find Roe here: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

The woman's right to privacy is based upon the combination of four of our amendments (and forgive me if i am wrong, its been a few years)-1, 5, 9, and 14 (and I knew that you weren't talking to me). The problem with that argument that I see is that anti-abortion people see life as beginning at conception and with pro-choice people feeling it begins...well, all over the place, 3 months, 4, etc. The fact is that if you feel that way, another person feels the exact opposite and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.

Should a question as important as life be left to such weak words as "see", "feeling", feels"? These words ignore fact and simply rely on enotion.

There are to use your exact words "50 million of these cases." And there have been because it was legally permissable.

As once was slavery. We advanced from the point of outlawing the buying, selling, and owning of humans to the point at which it is legal to kill them in the womb.

Anything that I consider living, I don't think should be killed. Period.

It sounds as if you're beginning to pontificate.

And my view is that fetuses can be considered living is when they start conciously thinking,

"Consider" is another of those factless, emotional words used a few paragraphs back.

so if that is hypocritical...please tell me.

What I will say to you is this. If you believe what you say, then you would not be hypocritical if you make a concerted effort to find proof that supports your beliefs. If, however, you find proof that refutes your belief and refuse to accept it, then you would be worse than hypocritical.

Are you up to the challenge?

 

[ShamMol]

Excellent. Not very many who debate the question have. Please tell me your understanding of Section IX B, paragraph 2. This, as you know, is the pivotal paragraph written by Justice Harry Blackmun. If you wish to refresh your memory, you can find Roe here: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Been a while, but in that section, you find something interesting. "As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth." So, if you read roe correctly, from a legal perspective, up until 3 months the state has no rights to intervene, but after, it has the right to intervene both in the interest of the mother, say if she wants to go through with it and it will kill her, or in the interest of the fetus. That is technically correct and still in practice today.
The court goes with the theory of when it is viable outside of the womb, which they interpret as 6 months or so. Ironically, this exactly coincides with when a feuts can conciously think-my opinion on when life begins. That section goes on to describe the areas where our beliefs come from, not really all that important. The paragraph two states basically what can be regulated, which is not that much.

Should a question as important as life be left to such weak words as "see", "feeling", feels"? These words ignore fact and simply rely on enotion.

hmm..no. I write like a speak and when i use those words, I am saying it. You used feeling, why can't i anyways?

As once was slavery. We advanced from the point of outlawing the buying, selling, and owning of humans to the point at which it is legal to kill them in the womb.

Well, my personal and legal opinion is that it is illegal after 6 moths...but hey...you disagree...impasse, blah, blah, blah

It sounds as if you're beginning to pontificate. "Consider" is another of those factless, emotional words used a few paragraphs back.

This is the correct word because that is how i form my opinions. I consider all the evidence and then consolidate what i feel and what i know into what i consider to be when life begins. You "consider" soemthing else as to when life begins...

What I will say to you is this. If you believe what you say, then you would not be hypocritical if you make a concerted effort to find proof that supports your beliefs. If, however, you find proof that refutes your belief and refuse to accept it, then you would be worse than hypocritical.

Are you up to the challenge?

I have proved it to myself and when I find another belief that I find compelling, i will consider it against my current beliefs and come to a rational decision. I never reject proof on the basis that it conflicts with my viewpoint, i take it and consider it and then change as necessary-you should see how i used to feel about some issues...wow.

 

[Fantasea]

Been a while, but in that section, you find something interesting.

It must have been a long while because you completely missed Section IX B, Paragraph 2. Please try again.

hmm..no. I write like a speak and when i use those words, I am saying it. You used feeling, why can't i anyways?

I don't use the word 'believe' when a fact is called for.

Well, my personal and legal opinion is that it is illegal after 6 moths...but hey...you disagree...impasse, blah, blah, blah
This is the correct word because that is how i form my opinions. I consider all the evidence and then consolidate what i feel and what i know into what i consider to be when life begins. You "consider" soemthing else as to when life begins...

OK. So now you have formed an opinion. However, an opinion won't do. Cite the facts that led you to form your opinion of when life begins.

I have proved it to myself and when I find another belief that I find compelling, i will consider it against my current beliefs and come to a rational decision. I never reject proof on the basis that it conflicts with my viewpoint, i take it and consider it and then change as necessary-you should see how i used to feel about some issues...wow.

How about trying to prove it to me? I'm open minded and accept facts. Lay them on me.

 

[ShamMol]

No offense, but Paragraph 2 of section b is the worst thing to cite for you for one main reason. it isn't controlling-it is state court where the supreme court of the united states trumps it.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

They don't speculate as to an answer, but they do in roe v. wade set the limit at 3 months until states can regulate abortion (you shoudl read what they can do...fascinating). People don't agree and never will.

If you skip down to Is a fetus a person in this article (the rest is complete drivle, trust me) it is quite interesting...actually most of it is drivle too...hell, read it and laugh with me, they make a mockery of pro-choice.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml

 

[AHSPolitician]

How about trying to prove it to me? I'm open minded and accept facts. Lay them on me.

I am very impressed with the factual basis for this very emotional issue that the two of you have been fighting with, it is not often that you see this debate move beyond emotional rhetoric. But I have a few questions.

Fantasea, what are your "facts" about when life begins? Is it 3 months, is it 6 months, or is it 195 days, 20 minutes, 10 seconds after the third time the couple engaged in intercourse during wedlock? When do you think life begins? Do courts have the jurisdiction to tell you exactly when your life began, or your kids? Do they really?

I personally think it is ridiculous that any human mind can put facts onto something so ambiguous and so nonfactual. Can you prove to me with "facts" when life begins? Can you really? When does life begin? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? WHAT IS LIFE? Solve these problems, and I'm sure, down to the second, you can put a label on when life begins.

But wait, history's greatest philosophers haven't answered these questions and they've had over 3000 years of recorded history to try. Solve these problems, my friend, I dare you. Good luck, the clock is ticking.

I don't mean to be rude, I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I must point out that it is not right for a bunch of robed men and women to decide for everyone of us when life begins and how precious it is for us. Sometimes government should just stay out of people's business (coughterrishiavocough)

I eagerly await your response.