Facebook
RSS
![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ Feels like: 17°F Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012 |
|
An Open QuestionPosted Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 2:02 PM
Your fourteen year old daughter or your mother or your sister or your grandmother or granddaughter were out for an afternoon walk and some guy jumps out of the shadows and grabs her, brutally rapes her and beats her.
As a result she becomes pregnant. There are complications seven months into the pregnancy and the doctor comes to you and tells you that if they do not perform an abortion both the mother and child will die. If they perform the abortion the mother will survive. What do you do? Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (59)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Keep the mother alive
Mike, I don't think anyone on this board would suggest that the mother and child should BOTH die when the mother could live. Even the hard-core pro-lifers wouldn't be against terminating the pregnancy at that point.
A possibly interesting modification. What if either the mother OR the child could live. So if the mother carries the child to term, she'll die and the child will live. But if she aborts, she will live.
I just realized my above comment might move the topic away from what Mike intended. My apologizes, I'm sure you have a point in mind Mike.
Please everyone, address Mike's hypothetical question and not my modification to it.
No, jhat, if people choose to answer your modification instead of my original question that is absolutely fine.
I say abort. That might anger some people, but I'm curious to see if Mike's got a point going on here.
Mike,
My own stance has always given the mother the choice when it is a life and death situation. Even if this example is not why the majority of abortions are performed. When I speak against abortion it is when the mother's life is not threatened.
I don't support abortion as a method of birth control at any stage after conception nor do I think it should be included as part of a rape kit. The child that is conceived is not the aggressor, the father is. Adoption is available for those children and they can go on to live normal, happy and productive lives just like anybody. I wouldn't punish the child for the sins of the father.
Why is it that fathers have no say in their children's lives. After all, if the mother is perfectly able to deliver the child but she just doesn't want to have a kid then why should a willing father lose that child? Why does it always "take two" when it comes to raising a child but not when it comes killing one?
McCook1,
Because a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a child. LEGALLY speaking, until the fetus comes to term. The father has no rights until then, because it is legally part of the mother's body, which she is legally entitled to control.
That's legally speaking. Morally speaking, everyone has the right to decide whether or not to consider the zygote/embryo/fetus a child. If a mother mourns a lost pregnancy as a death, that's her prerogative. But the unborn fetus is not given a birth/death certificate, and never was legally a citizen of the country.
A father can morally object to terminating the pregnancy, but he cannot legally object to it.
Steffanie,
"Your dad teaches in this town!!!"
This town? "This town" in Arkansas where you went to school? lol. Like I've said before... fish in a barrel.
Mike,
I will be the first to agree with MC1 simply because that situation actually happened to me... my live in girlfriend at the time ended up pregnant and while i was away on a work trip decided she didn't want the baby so she had an abortion...
I am completely against abortion without reason... the law i want is that abortions should only be allowed in life or death situations or in the case of a legitimate rape...(police report filed, rape kit done at hospital, etc..)
Other than that i feel if you do the deed you live with the consequences... maybe if people started being held responsible we would have less high school pregnancy if they knew they would have no other alternative if an "accident" happens
But Steffanie I thought you dropped out of the high school that I taught at. How would you know that my dad teaches in McCook if you dropped out of high school in Arkansas?
i think just reading the "intellectual"(sarcasm) ramblings of steffanie has dumbed us all down a little bit...
By the way steffanie why don't you switch your screen name to HABITUAL LIAR... you can't decide what school you dropped out of... where you live exactly.. now your telling me you work at TACO BELL but you have ground to sell in Florida???
jhat,
I'm aware of the legality of a father's denial of rights regarding his child before it's born. Our laws are always changing but our morals should remain constant and uncompromising. While the child is a physical part of the mother and needs her for survival she should have a greater responsiblity to protect that life not free reign to destroy it. It's still an individual life not just some abnormal growth inside the mother.
The question is directed at how we demand fathers to help in raising a child but want them to have no part of it when a mother decides to kill one inside the womb regardless of the reason.
Zygote, embryo, fetus, child or whatever term you want to assign to a baby that has been conceived, the fact remains that a human life has begun to form and abortion at any stage ends that life.
Not giving a birth certificate doesn't mean their was never a life to begin with and it doesn't mean their wasn't a death when a mother chooses abortion. If I can't find any evidence of my birth certificate it doesn't mean that I was never born. It just means the government didn't record it and on the flip side, if I die but don't receive a death certificate then I won't be resurrected.
Moral objections by the father can't save lives and hence, one more need for reforming our abortion laws.
Land to sell? Steffanie? Really?
Try this one for people who you think are gullible.
"If you believe that, I have some great ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you."
Just saying.
If viablity were so important then we wouldn't have to worry about the law they tried passing in Illinois while Obama was a legislator there. This law would have required doctors to protect an aborted fetus that survived outside the womb. Instead, they were left alone without any medical help, while the doctors and nurses just waited for them to die.
I'm aware of the legal cases but that still doesn't make it right or even accurate. There have been cases of premature babies born before 24 weeks that have survived outside the womb. All a mother has to do is kill the child before it can live on its own but she is killing a father's child too not just hers.
Oh and two those who are wondering, I have no agenda on this or point, it is really simply just an open question. I was just wondering on people's opinions.
Mike,
You are very good at this blog thing.... every time you put up a new one you spark great debate... unlike Sam who just complains in his
Who of you, by worrying (or having surgery, or an abortion, or any other "medical procedure" you care to name), can increase his life by one hour? (Matthew 7:27, paraphrased)
Just asking.
Mike, Shudder/Shake, I actually feel sorry for you, on this one. It seems that everyone has to put something into what you said, to justify the answer they give.
Given the circumstances you offer, as much as I would hate to do it, I would have to say 'NO,' unless a panel of three Specialists agreed to a ninety-nine percent chance that both would die, with emphasis on 'both.'(and only with the scenario you presented).
IMO, under the circumstances of rape, the 'father' (actually 'sire') should have absolutely no rights, beyond the right to be behind bars.
Your question is being justified by what usually destroys dialogue, 'What-If' syndrome. It seems that your question is reaping only how many ways the circumstances can be twisted. Nuff-Said.
In Messiah. Arley
G.I.,
Ok, maybe this is a clearer question. Why should we not change the law to protect the rights of a father and while we're at it protect the life of the child too?
TRUE STORY GUILLERMO
First of all, regardless of what you may think, even the catholic church gives permission to have an abortion in the given scenario that you've given so I don't really see the point that your trying to make here. Second of all, less than a tenth of a percent of all abortions come from a raped woman or from a complicated pregnancy that could cause a life to be lost. This argument is used by many to support the idea of pro choice while the vast majority of the exercisers of pro choice are essentially a bunch of sluts and or "working girls". Mike, through my life I have noticed on thing in this debate, the women who were brought up in a family that is pro life family always seem too find themselves a good man to settle down with and start a good life for themselves. On the other hand, most of the women who grow to be more of the one night stand type of girls that men look to in order to have a good time with but can't bring themselves to look to, to start a serious relationship with (who would marry a girl that most of their friends have already experienced?) grow to have their heart broken numerous times while going through broken relationships and divorces. People who are pro choice believe that they are getting rid of an accident before it comes to life which is a belief that is nothing more than a see no evil there is no evil concept, just because you don't want to believe that life starts at conception doesn't mean that your not destroying the life of a child before it's even given a chance to experience life from outside the womb. You need to accept the fact that in life there are consequences that come with making mistakes, it happens, a real man accepts that and moves on while a weaker man comes up with stupid little scenarios to support a choice that allows people to run from mistakes while telling themselves that what there doing didn't hurt anything.
I would say that there is a very real chance the doctors could be wrong, and go get a second opinion. Sometimes women die in childbirth - a sad reality. However, a woman dying while giving birth is not murder. Killing a child, however, does happen to be murder.
Contrary to the Big BO's opinion....a baby is not punishment.
GI - You are correct in the point that the law of the land allows for the execution of a human in the fetal stage. It is very unfortunate, and slowly a majority of people in this country are realizing it and beginning to lean pro-life.
My question to you...Why is it that you so devalue human life? Just wondering...however if I had to guess I would profer three guesses or assumptions:
1) you have no children of your own - hence you view children as non-persons or simply just meat.
2) you have no real love relationship including a love relationship with God. Since you cannot fathom love, you cannot properly receive it, nor can you give it.
3) you are afraid that there are REAL consequences for our actions and that they are not merely of this world, hence your denial of any possible reality other than an agnostic version of creation stiffens, and you become even more estranged and bitter.
I'm thinking that you rely on your own intellect for your focus and world view and that matters of faith are viewed as a punchline.
I noticed in an earlier response you championed the causes of blacks and women. If you really want to congratulate the people who toed the line to give these people unprecedented civil rights...then turn to your right and thank a conservative or a Republican...as it was predominantly both who made those civil rights "legal".
Ah, but the point that is always missed is that the today's Republicans are not the same as the Civil Rights Republicans. Most of the party today is made up of former Dixie-Crats who left the Democratic Party because they wanted to keep the races seperated. They now make up a good portion of today's Republican Party. When you look at the actual numbers of the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was a nonpartisan votes as a majority of both parties voted in favor of the act. So when you actually look at real history you can thank both parties.
Barry Goldwater, before he passed away, supported and voted for Clinton. He said he didn't even recognize what the Republican Party had become.
I would also be remiss to mention that on that historic vote it was a northern vs southern vote as every southern republican congressman voted against the act and only 8 out of 115 southern democrats voted for it.
On the Northern end however 190 out of 200 Democrats voted for it while 165 out of 194 Republicans voted for it.
I think that this question deserves a question in response. If Mike is truly trying to gauge the feelings of public opinion then this is what I ask of him. Are you willing to base the entire premise of abortion, set into law by nine judges (Roe vs. Wade 1973), on this one scenario that is documented to occur less than 1% of all abortions? Base on your comments on this blog I must assume that the answer is yes. To that I say to you that the left in this country has a much bigger problem. I mean the eradication of nearly 50 million potential liberals since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision has had an impact on the political landscape of this country. That in and of itself could almost be called genocide, but because it is self inflicted the term that comes to mind is "a tragedy". Conservatives and people of this nation that are Pro-Life are not going to support this genocide because of the respect of life from conception to natural death. As a Pro-Life Conservative one thought that comes to mind, why stop this if liberals and the Pro-Abortion movement want to drive themselves to extinction. That is an extremely evil thought and as a human being I must admit I am tempted by such a thought. But I step back and think of the absolute innocence of a fetus when one debates abortion and I pray for those that call this a choice.
In one of your previous posts you called the murder of Dr. Tiller, "Domestic Terrorism". That is your right and I pray for abortionist such as Dr. Tiller, as he took the lives of nearly 60,000 human beings over his career. Taking his life and justifying it with what he had done is inexcusable and if convicted the man that perpetrated the crime should be sentenced to life in prison without parole, preferably with hard labor, because for some criminals you should make them wish that the death penalty was used. Could that be classified as torture? I think in some circles those that oppose coercive interrogations would like to see Dr. Tiller's murderer subjected to actual torture, just watch MSNBC. But I digress..... I trust that eventually Dr. Tiller would have been brought to justice in violation of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban that was upheld in the 2007 Gonzales vs. Carhart Supreme Court case.
The fact that abortion is a major pillar in a Democrat party today is truly sad. It has nothing to do with choice and it never has. Abortion is big business and with that comes a lot of money pouring into the political process; just take a look at Kathleen Sebelius. The fact that states have voted and banned certain abortion procedures recently to only see them overturned by unelected judges is where we are as a country. I don't know what the left is so afraid of if Roe vs. Wade is overturned anyway. If that happens it is then deferred to the states where the people vote on it. There is the problem when dealing with this issue and many others, elitist judges know best not elected representatives and voters. Keep in mind the US Supreme Court once said that slavery was legal. Name for me one time besides court cases that US legislators debated abortion and actually went through the constitutional process to say abortion is a legal right?
In closing I have one last thought to tie this abortion debate to. Could this explain the overwhelming Democrat Party support for the amnesty of nearly 20 million illegal aliens? I mean if liberals are literally killing off their future voting base, they need to import government dependent citizens to support their ideology.
Democratic Party ... and amnesty had support from both sides of the aisle so don't try framing it only on liberals.
Look here is my belief on abortion as far as the law is concerned. If it were made illegal again abortions wouldn't just up and stop. Women would still get them and possibly die from it so instead of one dying two would die.
By the way I do watch MSNBC and I haven't seen one of their on-air personalities suggest that Dr. Tiller's be tortured. Don't make stuff up to try to prove your point.
At SEVEN months, Mike? Why not just deliver the baby alive?
SEVEN month babies are quite capable of living outside the womb. In fact, that's why Tiller had to be so careful to kill them BEFORE he induced labor.
This question is the one always asked by liberal genius like Mike Guillermo. When does this ever happen anyway guys?
You're murderers and that's about it. What if beating your wife or kids would turn them into a murderer someday? Would you then be an accomplice to murder yourself?
What if passing an 800 billion dollar waste of money was going to cause someone to commit sucide but create 100 jobs for a year?
Your question is stupid and a classic liberal trick. Get a life Mike. Maybe you could focus your efforts on your community instead of your idiotic diatribe here and talk to some teenagers about safe sex or God forbid...abstenance, instead of preaching about the "easy way out of trouble" baby killing you're standing up for.
When someone said " if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything," I don't think they meant standing up for killing babies. This makes me sick. Maybe you should look at some photos of chopped up babies from an abortion meat market. Maybe you liberals have been there donating money to them before, you should look in the dumpster some time.
Oh and by the way, I'm not a supporter of killing baby killers. How the hell is that going to solve anything? 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Oh Mike! I have a better one for you!!!!
What if....going into gang neighborhoods and shooting and killing gang bangers would save the lives of little kids who would otherwise turn into banger themselves. It would save lives, keep drugs off the streets, clean up these neighborhoods, and reduce welfare costs to the government!
I mean, if you're scenario is so real then I guess we could assume that most of these bangers will end up getting shot for something anyway, we should pay the feds to go shoot em up before they're 12 and make the would a perfect, liberal, and controlled system. Sounds like a winner.
I would not be supprised if this post is taken down since I sarcastically implied we should kill people, but it's okay to let liberals talk about killing innocent and totally defenseless babies, I guess we'll see.
abortion is a sick, twisted, soul destroying sign of the times that proves we will do anything to anyone and oursleves for sheer convienience and self pleasure.
People that stand behind these things since someone else siad it was okay are just too damn cowardly to stand up for what's right because its just too easy to go with the flow.
I'll pray for you to see the light as I have and quit posing rediculous questions.
"Most of the party today is made up of former Dixie-Crats who left the Democratic Party because they wanted to keep the races seperated. They now make up a good portion of today's Republican Party."
I disagree that most of the party is comprised of Dixie-Crats and I don't believe you can prove your case. However, that is not the point.
The point is abortion. And while I'm glad to see you state your belief on abortion, I'm disappointed to see that it conveniently lies upon the legal lines and doesn't reveal your personal beliefs.
I have always been anti-abortion. I never thought it was a good idea to throw a life away; and while there is argument about whether or not a 'fetus' is a baby...no one can argue that it is not alive.
Michael - on another blog you reprehensibly touted that I would foist misery and disaster on my family or daughter for holding my beliefs, insinuating that I was being pig-headed. I hold my beliefs about abortion out of love and concern for people. Some children are not planned - but NONE are a mistake and none deserve a death sentence for ANY reason. Children can sometimes be daunting, but they are not a punishment; like our President would have us believe.
I have three daughters and four sons; three of which are alive. They are all dear to me and would never consider life without them. If one of them were to fall out of a tree and become a quadriplegic...should I turn my back on them because they are not convenient? Viability has been brought up on this topic...what about a five month two and a half week old child? Is he viable? I would say yes...because I was that premature, and I'm 6 foot 4, 235 pound now. Who should be the judge in these matters?
You and I both know who. The Lord. And that is why this issue is black and white. You know it; and I know it.
I love how Mike throws out republican names but yet doesn't acknowledge that there are democrats who get thrown out of the party, why??? because he sided with... oh no... a Republican... can you say Joe Lieberman?
Justin is correct in saying that this is a classic liberal trick... what about this one? There is one man that has information regarding an immenent dirty bomb attack. We have him in custody and know that he has critical information on how to stop it. Do we just say oh well, good bye New York for 100,000 people or do we do everything in our power to extract the information from him?
Or how about this... the Obama administration has been reported to have told US soldiers that they now need to inform the battlefield detainees of their miranda rights. Even though they are not under the protection of the UNITED STATES Constitution.
Or better yet, how about the fact that Obama was deeply saddened and outraged over the killing of Dr. Tiller. But yet it took him 2 days to respond the the killing of a US Military recruiter, but he has to wait 2 DAYS to respond for a soldiers murder, but gets a statement Dr's murder out right away? I thought he was the Commander in Chief.
Don't get me wrong... Murder is murder, and I hope the person that killed Dr. Tiller receives what is justifiedly coming to him. Same with the Murderer of the Military Recruiter. The problem I have is how the President and the media reacted to the same situation, but with drastic differences... especially since he is the commander of the soldier, and has no formal connection to the abortionist.
GI... maybe you should take the blinders off and see who the Liberal Democrats are. Your statement, "Yes Mickel, humans should live free, your Lord should judge you, and you should stay out of other people's business. So too should the government." shows that you are actually a conservative... Everything this president has done along with the leadership of both parties right now is EXPAND the power of the government. Government wasn't involved in the private banking or private automaking industries before this last year. Now they are dictating terms for a repayment of OUR money. Nothing is ever too big to fail, something can be too big, but if it fails at that, "Natural Selection" occurs and someone else will step in and take over for a chance to make a profit.
When the Government expands its power, we both know that some of your rights are taken away.
I think a big part of the failure to communicate here is that most people are too firmly entrenched withing thier party lines and not able to think for themselves. To me, the mere fact that people are so willing to label themselves as Liberal or Conservative is a sad statement about the inability to think independently. I wear no labels nor allow others to apply them to me, except for awesomest guy ever of course :)
I believe Mike thinks he is being very clever with his situation but I, as earlier poster, question what kind of situation would lead to the death of both at 7 months. I suppose there could be a situation where that may occur I just can't imagine it. As jhat, I think, pointed out none but the far lunatic fringe of pro-lifers would oppose an abortion in a situation like that, but that is such a small percentage of the abortions that your situation seems disingenuous and only designed to rile up those like Steffanie, but I see that as a pattern of most of these blogs.
I do not support abortion, however, I do support the law. I agree that people should have the ability to change the law, as evidenced by Prop 8 in California. The problem arises when the people change a law that some with power disagree with, in which case they have the means to twart the will of the people which I'm pretty sure isn't what the founders probably had in mind. When a law is passed that people don't like the first reaction is almost always to complain and then try to find some legal trick to get the law reversed. Why doesn't anyone say, "well they got us there, so now what do we have to do to change enough minds to get the law changed the way we want?"
I believe Mike said somewhere back there that making abortions illegal will not end abortions. Was not slavery once legal? Is slavery still practiced in this country? Yes, but in such a small amount and when discovered the offenders are prosecuted. Laws can change.
Guillermo:
If you are stuck in "what is" and being stuck in what "will be" is apparently something you disagree with, why would you ever try to change anything? Why volunteer and advocate for your causes, after all isn't all advocation an attempt to change "what is"? Although I'm no great fan of the Catholic Church, I did find it funny that you list advocating against the church as one of the ways you cherish humanity.
"What if beating your wife or kids would turn them into a murderer someday? Would you then be an accomplice to murder yourself?"
Justin, what does this even mean? How is it even comparable. If you beat your wife and kids, you should go to jail. Period.
By the way I do appreciate those who actually answered the question. Navyblue, Mickel I may not agree with your position but you answered the question that I put forward.
I did not post this question as a gotcha. I didn't post this so I could them come out and criticize. If you have noticed on this particular thread I have largely remained quiet on the main question. I have answered other charges that have been brought up in the thread, but I have mostly let you answer if that's what you saw fit to do.
Guillermo,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you only meant that as part of your response to abortion, since there was a break I thought you meant that statement to stand alone. I wasn't trying to take your statement out of context, although you should realize I will never fully understand anyone's meaning when they post, so it is very possible there will be future confusions such as this. Rest assured, while I will disagree with almost everyone sometimes I really do try to not twist words.
I think I'll leave your ramblings of the nature of time for discussion in your next philosophy class.
I didn't realize the Catholic Church is the greatest threat to mankind, but if you believe so, advocate all you want. I prefer to advocate for things, not against others.
Back to being grounded in "what is" in regards to abortion. If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, would you no longer hold that there should be abortions? That was the point I was trying to make regarding laws, they can change and some people feel it is thier obligation to try to affect the passage of laws. To me it seems that if one doesn't worry about what "will be" he would always do as others tell him to do without complaint.
Mike,
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question fully enough, it that case I would agree that an abortion is neccessary. However, I still find your situation as specious as Sam's finding one article to support his view while discarding all opposing evidence. That is not indicative of reality in most circumstances.
Arley's point about a panel of specialist is very frightening to me. I don't want medical care rationed and controlled by anyone, however it looks like we may be headed that way.
Would anyone be ok if Dr. Tiller had been aborted as a fetus, thereby not performing abortions.
I really didn't want to get into the tit for tat parsing of everyone's words but if I must.....
"Advocating against the Catholic church might be THE BEST way to demonstrate how you cherish humanity."
If this is possibly THE BEST way to demonstrate you cherish humanity, then it possibly MUST be the greatest threat to humanity. I don't really see any other way to interpret your statement. How did I twist your words? I may have pointed out a foolish and ill-thought out statement but I don't feel I twisted your words. I also stand by my statement of standing FOR something, not AGAINST others.
I never said you were such a person, I clearly said if ONE, if you feel it applies to you I can't help that. I also didn't say a person should choose the future or present, I say let people do what they want.
I agree it is a far leap but I think not an entirely flawed one to say that if a person only lives his life concerned with the present and is content to follow any law without any thought or attempt to understand how it came to be or how it can be changed seems a little frighteningly Orwellian to me. I already apologized for applying it to your statement about abortion, as I said I didn't know you meant it that way.
"It has nothing to do with politics, I simply agree with the laws of our nation."
I was asking if you agree with the law because it IS the law or because the law coincides with your belief system. It seems to me that you agree with that specific law because it falls in line with your politics. Those who would simply follow because it is the law are those to whom I refer.
Good job Steffanie, once again proving you are a hypocrite.
I'm sorry, then you've shown yourself to by a hypothetical hypocrite?
"Wrong. I accept the argument made by the Supreme Court"
So if the Supreme Court decides to overturn that decision, you would then support that decision that there should be no abortion? I don't think that is what you are trying to say, but that's what your words seem to say to me now, because if your politics weren't taken into account and you merely agree with the courts' rulings because the court had ruled....now my head hurts. I thought you'd answered the question adequately previously.
You're right I forgot to put the "possibly" into the first post about the Catholic Church but I thought I'd corrected it with my later post so again I apologize. I am reading your statement that American conservatism is a leading threat to mankind as tongue-in-cheek, if you mean that literally please let me know, for then I would be justified leaving you on the shelf with Steffanie and other similar posters.
I do however, find it funny that of all the things I said that was the comment you chose to run with.
Why is it not surprising that I am ignorant of the Catholic Church?
Your reality is your own, I'm sorry if you feel I suggested what your reality is, I truly didn't intend to. As I've said many times I try to understand people's motives and try to change opinion, not rail and tell them how wrong they are. Nor do I denigrate and ridicule, at least not often ;)
I assure you I'm not trying to flip the scenarios I was just trying to clarify my statements which is sometimes hard on typed messages like these. I as trying, unsuccessfully apparently, to make sure that you did not say you favored Roe v. Wade simply because it is the law of the land but that you had some sort of belief behind the ruling and wouldn't just change your opinion if the Supreme Court changed opinion in the absence of an argument that changed your opinion.
For anyone who favors any law, the argument that "I support the law solely because it is the law" seems childish to me. With some people that is a fall back response which absolves them of needing to form an opinion themselves. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here because a couple of earlier posts seemed to imply that was the case but I didn't believe it to be so.
I feel that you often have valid arguments but that you are too eager to resort to ridicule and belittling behavior towards and to discount the knowledge or intelligence of those who don't agree with you.
Besides, I'm rubber and you're glue :)
SWNebr, very nice at the end. No I'm not being sarcastic I honestly liked that.
That is a good question...where has Doodlebug gone?
well Mike, maybe you pose this question as a trick, maybe you are foolish enough to believe all your liberal crap that this actually happens and it's not a just being used as a method of birth control by stupid, lazy, and immature kids. But that's okay since the law protects baby killers.
The law is the law until you start talking about gay marriage, then you guys are getting all steamed about that. What happened to the law of the majority?
Sorry Mike, I wasn't stupid enough to answer the most rediculously stupid question liberal pose to people in their defense of killing babies.
I guess if GI is right about the baby being a part of the woman until it can live outside the mother on it's own, then Mr Tiller is a cold blooded murderer and so would anyone who aborts a baby older than say...about 3-4 months.
You think the questions I pose are stupid? I don't think they are anymore rediculous than yours, other than they aren't supporting your political agenda. What did you think about the gang bangers? I think it's a good idea as long as we're killing babies every day. I am being cynical of course.
GI - I think I get it. You were raised VERY Catholic...it just didn't stick; and now you devote your life post 18yrs of age to protesting church doctrine. I can relate with the "rebel" stage, as I jumped into full rebellion as a late teen and into my early 20's. Fortunately I didn't hurt anyone, other than my own self, and came back to Christ with an open heart and open mind. I don't know how old you are...but maybe you will be able to transition out of your rebellion someday as well.
You stated "It has nothing to do with politics, I simply agree with the laws of our nation." I'm sorry to say this, but what a nice, concise and desperately cowardly way to convince yourself that your're on the right side of the 'abortion is ok' argument. Using your example, 100 years ago I could have just as easily said "beating your slave to death is right if'n he looked at your white wife wrong" and according to your viewpoint, I would have been justified and correct. Right?
I believe that you are drawing a false front with your assertion that the protection of innnocent lives equates with government meddling or intrusion into the lives of private citizens.
If you belive that, then do you also believe suicide laws are meddling? Are murder and rape laws meddling? What about obscenity laws and anti-marijuana laws?
If you are in alignment with pro-aborts because it is the law of the land...then why wouldn't EVERY abortion, no matter how early or late the term, no matter the circumstances of the parents, be okay? If I cause the death of an infant in the womb, I should only be charged with assault, right? Since the mother is still A-OK?
I don't have time to write down everything I wanted to cover right now; but some time we'll have to bandy about 'viability'.
Ciao
Mike, I don't know if you ever made this point here (if so, I haven't read the comment). But I thought this is where you'd be going with your original post, after some people answered your question.
Many people on this board who are pro-lifers agreed that in the hypothetical case Mike laid out, abortion WOULD be acceptable. Certainly there are other hypothetical scenarios in which you would cross that line as well, such as rape, incest, deformed fetuses, etc. (as rare as those occasions are).
The point to make is that MOST of us can agree that abortion is at the very least SOMETIMES acceptable. If this is the case, I don't want the federal government to be the the entity that decides WHEN it's acceptable. It being essentially a medical decision, I think it should be up to individual patients and their doctors.
(sorry if anyone's made that point already. I may have missed the comment. I just thought that was where Mike was originally going to take this, and I wanted to make the point before we were hopelessly off topic).
"Using your example, 100 years ago I could have just as easily said "beating your slave to death is right if'n he looked at your white wife wrong""
Umm Mickel, considering that slavery was banned in the United states 143 years ago, you would have gone to jail. Maybe not so much in the south, where they had stacked white juries, but it was still against the law in this country to beat anyone to death for looking at your wife wrong.
If you are going to make a point at least get your history right when doing it.
jhat,
I don't think Mike has made that point here, but myself and a couple of others have. I can see how it would be easy to miss in all the spam. I still view Mike's question as sophistic because he ignores the vast majority of abortions that are performed and only focuses on one of the few circumstances in which most people, even those who are pro-life, would agree an abortion would be neccessary.
There are striations within every group, there are pro-life people who, like me, see abortion as a medical neccessity in some situations but not as a legitimate method of birth control. There are those who identify as pro-choice who still work to lessen abortions but either agree with the legal premise or are so opposed to the right wing zealots who believe abortion should be outlawed in every case.
We spend too much time polarizing in our society and in general only the wing-nuts are loud enough to be heard that the majority of people feel they have no voice and no choice but to pick whichever wing is closer to thier patch of ground in the center.
I am pro-choice but I stand with Hillary Clinton when she says we need to work lessen abortions. I think abortion is a horrible thing, but that does not change my stance that abortion is still a choice between a woman, her doctor, and her God. All others need to stay out of it.
I've been painted on this strand and many other blogs on here as being someone who wants to kill innocents even though I have made my stance perfectly clear several times. It's not that big a deal to me. I know what I believe in and those who want to lie about what I stand for can continue to do so. I won't lose any sleep over it.
SWNebr,
Well said. It's too easy to forget that the extremists voices all too often drown out the moderates.
Mike,
That was actually going to be my next point. I think everyone can agree that we need to do much more to decrease the number of abortions performed. This means that teenagers need comprehensive sex education, that teaches them abstinence but also about how to properly avoid pregnancy should they choose to have sex. We also need to make sure that contraception is available, at little or no cost, to everyone who decides to be sexually active. To achieve work towards both of these goals, we also need to change society's view of sex as a taboo. It's not something that anyone feels comfortable talking about, or asking about. So many people are never given (or never seek) the information they need. Education is the answer, not ignorance.
Mike,
What is your view on paternal rights and responsiblities towards children? I ask because I have never found it fair that a father of an unborn child has no rights but is legally responsible for the child if the mother "chooses" to give birth.
Michael - I stand corrected....and to be honest I was going to go back and post the correct 'era' after I had already hit the "post" button...but figured I had made my point regardless.
Sorry that my mistake about the actual elapsed time span was what caught your attention and not the point which I was trying to make.
My next question to you would be...if abortions are "okay" in moderation...why wouldn't they be just as good without moderation?
Mickel, Let me ask you a question in return: Do you think it is okay to ban interracial marriages, or to preach from the pulpit that black people are inferior to whites? Since you brought up the beating of a slave question.
And I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking me.
As long as the mom is pregnant she is responsible. If my girlfriend were to get pregnant and she came to me and said she wanted to get an abortion. We would talk about it, the pros and cons, but ultimately the decision would be hers. It is her body
With decades of formal and informal discussions regarding one of the worst words in any language -- ABORTION, consider these thoughts.
There is virtually no one in favor of ABORTION.
Virtually every person I know and have known regards ABORTION as repugnant.
A minute minority of thinkers object to ABORTION as appropriate for child victims of rape and incest.
A slightly larger minute minority object to ABORTION as appropriate for adult victims of rape or incest.
The smallest minority opposes ABORTION where medically supported by at least two licensed doctors to save the woman's life.
More than 98% of all men believe a husband should have the veto power for an ABORTION for his spouse, unless she signs an admission of pregnancy due to adultery -- AND -- signs a divorce settlement at the same time, giving custody of all children to the husband and relinquishing all property claims.
If adultery is a strong probability and she refuses to sign, the husband has the legal right to DNA testing, with TOTAL decision power regarding divorce, if he is not the father.
For the past thirty years, surveys and polls have returned similar results of the majority of Americans supporting "A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE", with the husband's rights protected for married women. (That spousal protection drops when the family already includes several natural children. More children, more support for the woman.)
Parents of minor girls should always be made aware and have the opportunity to express their opinions.
Where the pregnancy is the result of mutual stupidity, and the father is a minor and is known, he and his parents have rights deserving protection.
If the proven father is an adult and more than four years older than the pregnant girl, most people consider a minimum of ten years on a chain gang as appropriate punishment.