Reading this got the wheels turning and made me want to spell out my beliefs. These are simplified a bit, but convey the general idea. I am against late term abortions (as most people are), and actually am about 50/50 on 2nd trimester abortions as well (would rather, if they're done, that they're done early if at all). Abortions in the case of rape or incest I am for, as well as if a woman will pass on a disease or the child will be severely handicapped. I am not for, but not against, abortions in the first trimester for whatever reason because it is the mothers choice and I don't feel I have the right to tell her how to live her life. If she feels it is the right decision for her and her life, then so be it. I am very pro-birth control and would rather that method be exercised and exhausted than to get an abortion afterward, but it isn't a perfect world. I would rather homosexuals be joined in civil unions with benefits than marriage, but I am vehemently against an amendment banning homosexual marriage. Why take away someone's rights when you can give them more.
Oh good, I get to ride my favorite hobby horse!!! The only legitimate reason to oppose abortion is to believe that from conception, the fetus is a distinct life as deserving of protection as yours or mine. But if you believe that, then why would the circumstances of conception change that? Do these rape or incest babies get marked with targets on their foreheads at birth, since the circumstances of their conception mean you can kill them if you want to? OTOH, if you are against abortion because you think the dirty little sluts who gave it up should suffer the consequences, then your position makes sense. But I'm not a big fan of that as a pro-life argument.
I think that life is life is life. And if a woman asks me what to do, I'll tell her to err on the side of creating life. And that I'd support to the death her right to control her body, period. IT IS HER BODY. Pro-lifers, get to adopting, please. You really should not have time for this part of the debate while all the folks you have ACTUALLY DONE WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED have produced all those little results that are waiting for you to fulfill Part Two of what you claim (in the name of their take on Christ, btw)...
Would it be wrong to write a letter with the exact opposite content and sign it "_________, Minion of Satan?"
In other words, the principal aim of Karl Rove's campaign strategy is to make facts irrelevant. Until everyone understands this, his version of the Republican party will continue to win. Kerry didn't understand it, but I don't think many other Democrats did either, and that's why Kerry lost and the Democrats lost ground. There's a version of the old lawyer joke that goes: If the facts are against you, pound the law; if the law is against you, pound the facts; if both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. Every time Kerry pounded the facts, the Bush campaign responded by pounding the table. They never contradicted the facts; that would have required them to admit that facts matter, and the facts weren't on their side. Their replies were always opinion statements that criticized Kerry for saying whatever it was he said. "He will say anything to get elected" or "He's jumping to conclusions" or "He's a flip-flopper". This was another piece of the Rove strategy. For thirty years or more, Republicans have been engaged in a campaign to geld the media, and Rove took this tactic to new heights. In addition to the constant whining about the "liberal media", there were Bush's remarks about how he doesn't read the newspapers. The fondness of this administration for secrecy and their petulant responses to any criticism are two more pieces of the puzzle. The "no follow up questions" gambit last week was another. Getting the facts about this administration's actions and putting it into it's proper context is the real 'hard work' these days, but most media people are too busy chasing career or corporate nirvana to do it. When an important story comes out that doesn't reflect well on Bush and his cronies, they use the same response they used on Kerry. They don't dispute the facts, they just shift the focus away from them. Too often the networks and newspapers bend over and take it. So they restrict themselves to the horse race angle and to a phony even-handedness that is exactly what the Bushies want. It's not a Sargent Friday world anymore, and Karl Rove has spent his career making sure that's the case in politics. Reality will eventually win, but by then it will be far too late.
I think they should be allowed choice in cases of rape or incest because it was not their CHOICE to have that sexual act, and they shouldn't have to alter their life because they were a victim of a crime. I do think (again, this is personally for me) that people have a choice to make before they have sex. Birth control (and i am absolutely all for birth control!) is never 100% effective. When you choose to have sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences if that results in a pregnancy. This goes for the man too. Again, it's not my place to impose my (somewhat) religious beliefs on someone else. That's why I would never support the overturning of Roe v Wade. People who choose abortions should be allowed a safe environment to do that in.
I don't know, would it? My boss forwarded this link to me this morning. To me, it's equally as hilarious as it is frightening. I thought it belonged under this thread title.
Conspiciuosly absent? No, i just don't really have an informed opinion on when life begins. I'm not a doctor.
Don't need to be a doctor to know that life ends when a Bush soldier kills one of 100,000 Iraqis....... How about Iraqi wounded? Do you know what that means? Protect a fetus all you want, real people are getting killed. And if that doesn't bother you, if "when life begins" is all u care about, that's a just plain pathetic and naive and narrow-minded point of view.
Ok, since it's your favorite hobby horse, let me chime in with my five cents worth. I think a logical argument can be made that it should not matter how the life was conceived when it comes to determine whether or not to protect it. Just as most people would agree that a son or daughter should not be killed for the actions of the father, the same would apply to an unborn child, if we determine that it has a life worth protecting. A life conceived by rape or incest has the same value as a life conceived by carelessness or by an act of genuine love. The real question is at what point the embrio actually becomes a life worth protecting. That is the debate that I think is meaningful. I personally don't see the sense in protecting an egg which has just been fertilized just because it is a potential new life. We may think it is distasteful or even immoral for a mother to want to kill her offspring. But short of religious conviction, I see no real basis for considering this combination of cells a life. I don't see how we can argue that it should be legally protected, just because it is a potential life. If we make that argument, we might as well protect every single sperm and egg in our bodies, because they also carry that potential for life. On the other hand, I think that to say a baby is not alive until it comes out of the womb is also senseless. When I see a newborn baby it seems obvious even to a non-scientist like me that life didn't just suddenly spontaneously occur as it came out of the womb. That baby comes out very alive. Does anybody wish to argue otherwise? So, there is a point somewhere in between conception and birth when a bunch of cells becomes a human being, and life occurs. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the pro-choice crowd, and allow for that life to begin later rather than sooner, I think it is fair to say that third trimester fetuses should be protected, because they are likely to be as alive as a newborn baby is and as worthy of protection. I don't think at this point rape or incest should be part of the equation. Once the fetus was alowed to stay inside the womb long enough to become a life, it should be protected on it's own merits. I do think that the life of the mother is a different matter. Sometimes we have to make a tough choice between two lives. Siamese twins are one example, and I think a pregnant woman is another. It is a value judgement and I think only the mother can decide if she'd rather save her own life or that of her offspring. But that's just my thinking. I don't demand to impose it on anyone else, except possibly by persuasion through a healthy exchange of ideas as we are doing here.
You don't need to inflate the figures to make the point that war is a bad thing and inocent people die. But you have to consider that there are reasons why a war may be justified in moral grounds. Leaving aside Iraq, because it seems that people right now are to emotional about it to think of it rationally, I think we can come up with many historical examples of wars which were justified in moral grounds, even though it was tragic that many people died. And we wouldn't have the freedom we have today to exchange ideas as we are doing if it hadn't been won for us in the battlefields in which many innocent people died and were wounded. Do you know what that means?
I doubt it. I think we can come up w/reasons for going to war after some people have been attacked, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in history where someone went to war killing people for the purpose of giving them-uh-"freedom".
So, do you agree with the premise that there are certain circumstances in which war can be just, even if it results in innocent people dying and getting hurt?
I'm sorry, did i say anything about the war? And did i say anything about the point at which life begins? Because I don't believe I did. I also stated that i think everyone should have the right to choose, and i was only speaking personally for myself. Perhaps you should actually READ peoples replies before you start jumping on your high horse and calling them pathetic and narrow minded. You're the reason why the "reds" think us "blues" are arrogant elitists. READ, MAN! Use your literacy for good, not evil. And don't attack people that agree with you. Dumb@$$. I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself.
You're on a public board. Speaking to the public. Which means your point of view is simply personal, and doesn't apply to anyone else except you, it's "narrow minded". Signed, Dumba$$.
Guys, just wanted to say what a great thread this is. For the most part, I haven't seen such a good intelligent discussion in a long time on this board.
Well, I asked you because I was just wandering if you were opposed to all war on principle, or just to this particular war. As far as my personal thoughts, I have argued them here many times, but here is a summary of what I think. I do not necessarily agree with all the the reasons which the administration laid out in their arguments, and I do think it is tragic that so many mistakes were made in execution which led to unnecesary deaths. But I do think it was a just war and I think it is likely that in the long term the world will be better because of it. I believe that it is immoral for the community of civilized nations to allow thugs like Saddam Hussein to kill, torture, rape and oppress innocent people under the guise of national sovereignty. I also believe that it is extremely dangerous to let a megalomaniac madman who has invaded his neighbors and has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people to sit on top of the second largest reserves of the commodity which basically runs the world's economy. I think that when the world's community turns a blind eye to both of these problems, and when we have a country which has the capability to act in order to stop the thug/madman, then it is moral for this country to act, even alone, after it has first tried to no avail to work out the problems within the community of nations.