My raw-vegan friend claims that eating a steak is the same as murdering your mother.
While this was funny, I dont know if you have a point your trying to make anymore Beat or if your just dont like others feelings on the topic at hand so youre being absurd.
"...Also, the Bible doesn't justify firebombings, it says it is not murder if they are justified. ..."
The only justification I can think of for the acts of war would be self defense, ( and then only if the nation involved had no choice but to defend itself) but I sure would't go looking to the Bible to sanctify or justify those acts.
Once again, the Bible itself doesn't justify, it lays out law to show our sins and how we fall short. It does not tell you your war is just, it tells you what is not just. As I have said, an arbitrary line must be drawn at some point and from there it is both of us rationalizing why our line is better. Who is right? No clue. I, once again, advocate little or no killing of humans, but I trust in grace when I do inevitably mess up...and hope that I never do so as badly as to lead to the death of another.
That seems to be circular logic to me...the Bible doesn't justify the firebombings, but they aren't murder if they are justified...sorry, I can't get my head around that.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
We have many people who have been released from our prisons, many of whom were on death row because they were found to falsely convicted. Until we can devise a system that can gurantee without failure that no person will be falsely convicted of a crime punishible by death, then I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Apples/apples. Oranges/oranges.
I also think that people that are wrongfully put in prison should be able to get some sort of recourse. I mean how it is now, sorry you were locked up for 25 years, good luck.
and dont forget about the people that are in prison for committing victimless "crimes" such as being addicted to drugs. or am i now going way to far off topic?
My raw-vegan friend claims that eating a steak is the same as murdering your mother.
While this was funny, I dont know if you have a point your trying to make anymore Beat or if your just dont like others feelings on the topic at hand so youre being absurd.
He wasn't being absurd..the guys friend's mom is a cow...no wonder he's a raw-vegan.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
We have many people who have been released from our prisons, many of whom were on death row because they were found to falsely convicted. Until we can devise a system that can gurantee without failure that no person will be falsely convicted of a crime punishible by death, then I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Apples/apples. Oranges/oranges.
I also think that people that are wrongfully put in prison should be able to get some sort of recourse. I mean how it is now, sorry you were locked up for 25 years, good luck.
and dont forget about the people that are in prison for committing victimless "crimes" such as being addicted to drugs. or am i now going way to far off topic?
What topic?...and no we should NOT forget about all those poor bastids wasting away in the American Gulag because they got bustid in the war on drugs. I am convinced that every person in an American prison for a marijuhana crime is a political prisoner of the US government.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
Let's, for the sake of argument say that it is life. Instead of being a fetus, you instead get a full grown baby that you have to strap to your belly for 9 months before it can live independantly. And during that time, the mother went against medical advice and ended up killing the child... how should the mother be viewed? Or if someone attacked the mother and the baby was lost, how should that attacker be viewed? You are right to say that there will need to be changes to the law to account for this new definition. But that is how human law is supposed to work. Laws had to change when women were allowed to vote, laws had to change for civil rights and the removal of segragation... laws change. It will suck when it first changes, mistakes will happen, they always do... but I feel compelled to argue for life.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
We have many people who have been released from our prisons, many of whom were on death row because they were found to falsely convicted. Until we can devise a system that can gurantee without failure that no person will be falsely convicted of a crime punishible by death, then I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Apples/apples. Oranges/oranges.
I also think that people that are wrongfully put in prison should be able to get some sort of recourse. I mean how it is now, sorry you were locked up for 25 years, good luck.
and dont forget about the people that are in prison for committing victimless "crimes" such as being addicted to drugs. or am i now going way to far off topic?
What topic?...and no we should NOT forget about all those poor bastids wasting away in the American Gulag because they got bustid in the war on drugs. I am convinced that every person in an American prison for a marijuhana crime is a political prisoner of the US government.
i agree that they are wrongfully imprisoned. i just hesitate to call them "political prisoners" i do see where you are coming from though. its an interesting way of looking at it. one worth looking at harder.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
Let's, for the sake of argument say that it is life. Instead of being a fetus, you instead get a full grown baby that you have to strap to your belly for 9 months before it can live independantly. And during that time, the mother went against medical advice and ended up killing the child... how should the mother be viewed? Or if someone attacked the mother and the baby was lost, how should that attacker be viewed? You are right to say that there will need to be changes to the law to account for this new definition. But that is how human law is supposed to work. Laws had to change when women were allowed to vote, laws had to change for civil rights and the removal of segragation... laws change. It will suck when it first changes, mistakes will happen, they always do... but I feel compelled to argue for life.
Well, however it goes, I am convinced that, because of our long and proud history of jurisprudence in the US, there will be a whole bunch of people who will want to use the law to beat the living crap out of any woman who has the misfortune to have a misscarriage if we decide that human life begins at conception. Personally, I do not believe that a human life exists until it is living outside the womb.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
Let's, for the sake of argument say that it is life. Instead of being a fetus, you instead get a full grown baby that you have to strap to your belly for 9 months before it can live independantly. And during that time, the mother went against medical advice and ended up killing the child... how should the mother be viewed? Or if someone attacked the mother and the baby was lost, how should that attacker be viewed? You are right to say that there will need to be changes to the law to account for this new definition. But that is how human law is supposed to work. Laws had to change when women were allowed to vote, laws had to change for civil rights and the removal of segragation... laws change. It will suck when it first changes, mistakes will happen, they always do... but I feel compelled to argue for life.
very intereseting. again, this is EXACTLY what im talking about. these are difficult questions. and it comes down to: when is that mass of cells considered its own life? very interesting philosophical questions here.
ya see... this is how the political threads USED to be. we have found a point where we can talk about the issues and look at it as a intellectual conversation with different points of view and we arent being personal or negative. why cant we do this all the freakin time? I actually didnt do a review on a cigar today because of this thread. it was just to interesting of a conversation to pass up or ignore while i was trying to review a cigar.
"...Also, the Bible doesn't justify firebombings, it says it is not murder if they are justified. ..."
The only justification I can think of for the acts of war would be self defense, ( and then only if the nation involved had no choice but to defend itself) but I sure would't go looking to the Bible to sanctify or justify those acts.
Once again, the Bible itself doesn't justify, it lays out law to show our sins and how we fall short. It does not tell you your war is just, it tells you what is not just. As I have said, an arbitrary line must be drawn at some point and from there it is both of us rationalizing why our line is better. Who is right? No clue. I, once again, advocate little or no killing of humans, but I trust in grace when I do inevitably mess up...and hope that I never do so as badly as to lead to the death of another.
That seems to be circular logic to me...the Bible doesn't justify the firebombings, but they aren't murder if they are justified...sorry, I can't get my head around that.
Think of it this way, a driving a car doesn't mean you are doing it with a license, but if you have a license you may drive. The Bible lays out law that shows how you are NOT being just and things you MUST DO to be just. Just because you do some of the things you MUST DO doesn't mean you are being just.
With out waxing too theological, because I doubt anyone here is interested in debates on Biblical law... Law, when used in a Biblical sense, exists to show us our sins and why we need salvation. It is not a how to book on war, but instead a curb, guide, and mirror that condemns us and what we do. Even David, the apple of God's eye, committed many injustices in war...just ask Uriah. Basically, what I was saying is we can't ever say we are entirely just in anything we do, but we can't condemn every war based on individual actions of injustice.
Im going to make a new thread that I am sure will raise ire and anger, but its serious to me and just a debate about religion and "god" or "Jesus".
and the nature of god? awe man.... philosophy? why do i have to go to work today? this sounds like its gunna be fun. just my cup of tea. (not tea party, just tea lol)
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
Let's, for the sake of argument say that it is life. Instead of being a fetus, you instead get a full grown baby that you have to strap to your belly for 9 months before it can live independantly. And during that time, the mother went against medical advice and ended up killing the child... how should the mother be viewed? Or if someone attacked the mother and the baby was lost, how should that attacker be viewed? You are right to say that there will need to be changes to the law to account for this new definition. But that is how human law is supposed to work. Laws had to change when women were allowed to vote, laws had to change for civil rights and the removal of segragation... laws change. It will suck when it first changes, mistakes will happen, they always do... but I feel compelled to argue for life.
Well, however it goes, I am convinced that, because of our long and proud history of jurisprudence in the US, there will be a whole bunch of people who will want to use the law to beat the living crap out of any woman who has the misfortune to have a misscarriage if we decide that human life begins at conception. Personally, I do not believe that a human life exists until it is living outside the womb.
Yes, I will agree that we as a people suck. And, as Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." The same thing was argued at one point about giving more people voting rights, that they would gang up to destroy the current majority. The Bible is fairly silent about miscarriage outside of punishment for men that cause a woman to miscarry.
Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins?
I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call. Govt or anyone else does not have the right to force that person to keep it. I do think that there should be a realistic time frame, sort of a point of no return.
Also for those that are all about LIFE, what about all those kids growing up in homes that are below the poverty line, where they suffer every day even die. What about all the money is wasted on people who make bad decisions and pump out kids left and right for the money (whether it be from the govt or the fathers - yes I know a woman like that, friend of my wife)? Should there be laws that put a limit on abortions for other than medical reasons? Also what about birth control? In texas woman are going to Mexico for them and the morning after pill because the state has a crackdown on their right for these drugs.
It's one thing to be against abortion, it's another to say that woman cannot choose for themselves. The Govt has no right telling a woman she can't be in charge of her own body. If a woman is raped she is the Victim and should be treated as such. The GOP just pushed the Personhood Bill in their party platform, link a few pages back, the GOP have intruded on a woman's rights. The dude who made the statement about rape said in public what the party is all about these days, which I assume from the push back is something they didn't want public.
Im going to make a new thread that I am sure will raise ire and anger, but its serious to me and just a debate about religion and "god" or "Jesus".
and the nature of god? awe man.... philosophy? why do i have to go to work today? this sounds like its gunna be fun. just my cup of tea. (not tea party, just tea lol)
I need to finish up some code, but this thread sounds interesting to me too.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
Let's, for the sake of argument say that it is life. Instead of being a fetus, you instead get a full grown baby that you have to strap to your belly for 9 months before it can live independantly. And during that time, the mother went against medical advice and ended up killing the child... how should the mother be viewed? Or if someone attacked the mother and the baby was lost, how should that attacker be viewed? You are right to say that there will need to be changes to the law to account for this new definition. But that is how human law is supposed to work. Laws had to change when women were allowed to vote, laws had to change for civil rights and the removal of segragation... laws change. It will suck when it first changes, mistakes will happen, they always do... but I feel compelled to argue for life.
Well, however it goes, I am convinced that, because of our long and proud history of jurisprudence in the US, there will be a whole bunch of people who will want to use the law to beat the living crap out of any woman who has the misfortune to have a misscarriage if we decide that human life begins at conception. Personally, I do not believe that a human life exists until it is living outside the womb.
Yes, I will agree that we as a people suck. And, as Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." The same thing was argued at one point about giving more people voting rights, that they would gang up to destroy the current majority. The Bible is fairly silent about miscarriage outside of punishment for men that cause a woman to miscarry.
Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins?
How is allowing everyone to vote going to have them gang up on the Majority? Seems to me that voting for the last 50 years has been working just fine. Just take out those damn voting machines and use exit polls and have a paper trail.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call.
In fact, abortion to save the life of the mother is fine by me as a last resort. You are right, it isn't about me, but it is about the child as well as the mother. Once again, it comes down to when you define life as beginning. I define it at conception. Would you argue that a woman has the right to kill her child after it is born because it is interfering with her direction in life? Of course you wouldn't. But that is what you are asking me to be ok with... death of a child for liberty of the mother. Yes, people will break the law and endanger themselves, but you can't remove laws just because people make bad choices about them. We would have fewer speeding tickets if we just removed all speed limits too.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
Let's, for the sake of argument say that it is life. Instead of being a fetus, you instead get a full grown baby that you have to strap to your belly for 9 months before it can live independantly. And during that time, the mother went against medical advice and ended up killing the child... how should the mother be viewed? Or if someone attacked the mother and the baby was lost, how should that attacker be viewed? You are right to say that there will need to be changes to the law to account for this new definition. But that is how human law is supposed to work. Laws had to change when women were allowed to vote, laws had to change for civil rights and the removal of segragation... laws change. It will suck when it first changes, mistakes will happen, they always do... but I feel compelled to argue for life.
Well, however it goes, I am convinced that, because of our long and proud history of jurisprudence in the US, there will be a whole bunch of people who will want to use the law to beat the living crap out of any woman who has the misfortune to have a misscarriage if we decide that human life begins at conception. Personally, I do not believe that a human life exists until it is living outside the womb.
Yes, I will agree that we as a people suck. And, as Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." The same thing was argued at one point about giving more people voting rights, that they would gang up to destroy the current majority. The Bible is fairly silent about miscarriage outside of punishment for men that cause a woman to miscarry.
Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins?
How is allowing everyone to vote going to have them gang up on the Majority? Seems to me that voting for the last 50 years has been working just fine. Just take out those damn voting machines and use exit polls and have a paper trail.
I was refering to things such as women's sufferage... when they were added the majorities changed. I am definitly not arguing more voters is bad, I am saying the argument of people abusing newly granted rights to the detriment of society has been argued before, and is usually found false. Most people are not sociopaths and want as many to succeed as possible, if for no other reason than the cynical 'when more people have success you can get more from them'.
My point was don't avoid creating law just because some may try to abuse it. Create law, then fix abuses.
I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call.
In fact, abortion to save the life of the mother is fine by me as a last resort. You are right, it isn't about me, but it is about the child as well as the mother. Once again, it comes down to when you define life as beginning. I define it at conception. Would you argue that a woman has the right to kill her child after it is born because it is interfering with her direction in life? Of course you wouldn't. But that is what you are asking me to be ok with... death of a child for liberty of the mother. Yes, people will break the law and endanger themselves, but you can't remove laws just because people make bad choices about them. We would have fewer speeding tickets if we just removed all speed limits too.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
Once again it's not something "YOU" need to be okay with. It's about the woman here. Would you be okay with the govt or someone telling you when or if you can marry, or if you can date, or if you can have sex? I doubt it. If you think life begins at conception then that's your opinion, though there is no evidence that it does, but if you "feel" it does than that is okay by me. I think everyone should be able to have an opinion, however basing laws or infringing in others rights merely off of a "feeling" is not what I believe nor do I think the majority of people think.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
Can you explain why the Democratic Party's position on abortion includes the use of partial birth abortion? What's with that? Does life now begin when half of the baby is out of the womb?
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
Can you explain why the Democratic Party's position on abortion includes the use of partial birth abortion? What's with that? Does life now begin when half of the baby is out of the womb?
I am not a Democratic Party official, so I cannot speak for the Democratic Party. Personally, I am opposed to partial birth abortions, because I believe that life begins at birth outside the womb, and once birth begins, it ought to be allowed to proceed.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call.
In fact, abortion to save the life of the mother is fine by me as a last resort. You are right, it isn't about me, but it is about the child as well as the mother. Once again, it comes down to when you define life as beginning. I define it at conception. Would you argue that a woman has the right to kill her child after it is born because it is interfering with her direction in life? Of course you wouldn't. But that is what you are asking me to be ok with... death of a child for liberty of the mother. Yes, people will break the law and endanger themselves, but you can't remove laws just because people make bad choices about them. We would have fewer speeding tickets if we just removed all speed limits too.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
Once again it's not something "YOU" need to be okay with. It's about the woman here. Would you be okay with the govt or someone telling you when or if you can marry, or if you can date, or if you can have sex? I doubt it. If you think life begins at conception then that's your opinion, though there is no evidence that it does, but if you "feel" it does than that is okay by me. I think everyone should be able to have an opinion, however basing laws or infringing in others rights merely off of a "feeling" is not what I believe nor do I think the majority of people think.
If it is based on what a majority think... why can't we vote on it? Does the father get no say if he believes his child is alive at conception and his wife does not? And I am not sure what you mean by no evidence, what defines life? Why is the same not alive child that could be aborted suddenly alive if pulled out prematurly? Like I have said, I understand where you are coming from, but understand you are every much asking me to be ok with the death of a child as you feel I am asking you to be ok with the loss of a woman's right to liberty.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I thought I was wanting to control women...now I want to control sex? It is frustrating debating with you.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I thought I was wanting to control women...now I want to control sex? It is frustrating debating with you.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
American puritianism has been obsessed with sex and the sexual conduct of women from the very moment the Pilgrims got here. Current day Evangelical Christians still are, and many of these will often rail against "radical feminism" and how they've destroyed the "moral fabric" of our society, and sex is usually at the heart of their concerns.
For the record, my wife says that it's frustrating debating with me, too
Comments
or am i now going way to far off topic?
i do see where you are coming from though. its an interesting way of looking at it.
one worth looking at harder.
very interesting philosophical questions here.
ya see... this is how the political threads USED to be. we have found a point where we can talk about the issues and look at it as a intellectual conversation with different points of view and we arent being personal or negative.
why cant we do this all the freakin time? I actually didnt do a review on a cigar today because of this thread. it was just to interesting of a conversation to pass up or ignore while i was trying to review a cigar.
With out waxing too theological, because I doubt anyone here is interested in debates on Biblical law... Law, when used in a Biblical sense, exists to show us our sins and why we need salvation. It is not a how to book on war, but instead a curb, guide, and mirror that condemns us and what we do. Even David, the apple of God's eye, committed many injustices in war...just ask Uriah. Basically, what I was saying is we can't ever say we are entirely just in anything we do, but we can't condemn every war based on individual actions of injustice.
awe man.... philosophy? why do i have to go to work today? this sounds like its gunna be fun. just my cup of tea. (not tea party, just tea lol)
Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins?
Also for those that are all about LIFE, what about all those kids growing up in homes that are below the poverty line, where they suffer every day even die. What about all the money is wasted on people who make bad decisions and pump out kids left and right for the money (whether it be from the govt or the fathers - yes I know a woman like that, friend of my wife)? Should there be laws that put a limit on abortions for other than medical reasons? Also what about birth control? In texas woman are going to Mexico for them and the morning after pill because the state has a crackdown on their right for these drugs.
It's one thing to be against abortion, it's another to say that woman cannot choose for themselves. The Govt has no right telling a woman she can't be in charge of her own body. If a woman is raped she is the Victim and should be treated as such. The GOP just pushed the Personhood Bill in their party platform, link a few pages back, the GOP have intruded on a woman's rights. The dude who made the statement about rape said in public what the party is all about these days, which I assume from the push back is something they didn't want public.
After birth, outside the womb.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
My point was don't avoid creating law just because some may try to abuse it. Create law, then fix abuses.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
For the record, my wife says that it's frustrating debating with me, too