If Only They Would Stick to Fiscal Issues

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:03 am

childish opinion

you have a tiny penis

brilliant!

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:50 am

Stubby wrote:Unless any of you have a uterus, you really should shut the hell up.

Sounds like someone who's afraid of a rational discussion of the issue.

The underlying issue is whether the fetus is human, deserving protection by the law, or a tissue mass to be disposed of at the convenience of the parents. I'm guessing Stubby takes the latter position.

Some supporting the "pro choice" position appear to do so rejecting human life as of value. Such people tend to also support the most radical Malthusian position, or see humans outside "their people" as something to exploit or dispose of.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:55 pm

hanelyp wrote:
Stubby wrote:Unless any of you have a uterus, you really should shut the hell up.
Sounds like someone who's afraid of a rational discussion of the issue.

The underlying issue is whether the fetus is human, deserving protection by the law, or a tissue mass to be disposed of at the convenience of the parents. I'm guessing Stubby takes the latter position.

Some supporting the "pro choice" position appear to do so rejecting human life as of value. Such people tend to also support the most radical Malthusian position, or see humans outside "their people" as something to exploit or dispose of.

You would be guessing wrong.
I don't like abortion but am pro-choice. Abortion saddens me. But what saddens me more is the belief of some people that it is fine to force a woman to become an incubator.

My position is that women are taking ALL the risks of pregnancy, be they physical, mental or emotional, therefore they alone should be allowed to decide what do about it. Don't think for a second that it is an easy decision to make or to live with, at least for most people.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:12 pm

"Act of god" is one thing, personal irresponsibility is another. I am willing to pitch in and help my fellow man on response to acts of god. I am not so willing to pitch in and pay for the irresponsible actions of others.
I am also VERY much against having someone's religious postion dictated to me as a mandate of law.
Personally, I think that the line can be drawn on murder/not murder at a reasonable point in the pregnancy. Far enough along that the woman is certain she is pregnant, but not so far as to indicate independant life (brain function/survivability, etc) exists. The drama to me seems to be that folks want to argue this "line" as a point of contention more so because they are seeking the inch to claim a mile.
If a woman reaches "the line" and fails to choose, then she has in fact chosen to come to term and deliver. This choice is her problem and not mine (unless it is something I had a part in).
This entire argument is nonsense based in personal agendas, most of which are emotionally religiously based.
If a woman is "act of god'd" and raped and conceives, then we seek to hold the rapist accountable, and if need be society can kick in.
If a woman becomes pregnant based in her own choices and lifestyle, then that is her problem and she needs to take responsibility for it, as does the father, if possible.
Providing free safety nets is the root cause of the majority of the issues we face in the modern world. I for one am sick of paying for other's idiocy.

People need to face and accept the concept of personal repsonsiblity for their lives. We have run out of other people's money to support irresponsibility. It is no longer (and hasn't been for a while) "we will run out". Train left the station.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:20 pm

No one likes abortion. I can't imagine why so many pro-choice folks always want to preface their opinions by saying they don't like abortion.

Single father's also bear all the risks, be they physical, mental or emotional of raising a kid. Does that mean its a legitimate choice for such a father to abort his year old infant? Of course not.

Every time someone approaches this issue without recognizing there is a sanctity of life issue involved, they are only pretending to address the real issue.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:44 pm

sacticity of life, give me a break!!!

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:21 pm

When you are discussing when to treat a fetus as worthy of protection, you are discussing a sanctity of life issue. Any discussion of abortion that is not framed in those terms is uninformed. All sensible people agree that innocent human life deserves protection. The question is when it becomes human life. "Sanctity" is the term used for 3,000 years. Just because you're ignorant of the usage doesn't make it the wrong term. It's the right term. We respect human life in special ways as compared to all other life for good reasons. Those reasons are historically summed up by the term "sanctified" or "set apart" from all other life we're familiar with.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:37 pm

for 3000 years, eh?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:07 pm

I'm not a theologian, but the concept of sanctity is developed in the Hebrew psalms that date from about 3,000 years ago, and is later amplified in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah in about 600 BC. In the Vedas, sanctity of human life is likewise a serious subject dating back to at least 1,700 BC, but literacy in India was not common at that time, so its hard to say the subject was a popularly understood one. We don't really know. Likewise, the concept of sanctification shows up in the very earliest writings in history, the Gilgamesh Epic; though we don't know how common or pervasive was the understanding of the concept. We do know the ancient Hebrews were exceedingly pro-literacy and all well studied in their religious texts ever since the exodus. So yeah, 3,000 years is a fair generalization but it is conservative. Religious literature dates back significantly further.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:14 pm

GIThruster wrote:No one likes abortion. I can't imagine why so many pro-choice folks always want to preface their opinions by saying they don't like abortion.

Single father's also bear all the risks, be they physical, mental or emotional of raising a kid. Does that mean its a legitimate choice for such a father to abort his year old infant? Of course not.

Every time someone approaches this issue without recognizing there is a sanctity of life issue involved, they are only pretending to address the real issue.

Exactly how many fathers DIE giving birth?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:48 pm

Irrelevant. Your argument still reduces to absurd very easily.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:03 am

GIThruster wrote:Irrelevant. Your argument still reduces to absurd very easily.

Its relevance is self evident. WHy do you think it is not?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:28 am

If you put your argument into logical form it will be evident where your thinking errors are occurring. If I do it, then you'll complain I didn't do your argument justice. So do it yourself. Then I can show you how the argument fails.

Should be obvious to anyone who's taken a Freshman class in critical thinking.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:05 am

I guess if you don't want to back up your assertion...

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:21 am

My position is that women are taking ALL the risks of pregnancy, be they physical, mental or emotional, therefore they alone should be allowed to decide what do about it.

But what you're saying is not true. They bear the physical portion of the burden alone, but the rest is shared. The fact you placed all three types of burden together is necessary and sufficient to show they are of like kind and fathers bear a like burden.

Single father's also bear all the risks, be they physical, mental or emotional of raising a kid. Does that mean its a legitimate choice for such a father to abort his year old infant? Of course not.

By refusing to see that there is an issue here with the age of the fetus and/or child, you imply there is no valid distinction here. Either there is or there isn't. If there is a valid distinction, then there needs to be a discussion about what is the appropriate age to allow an abortion. It there isn't a valid distinction, then by your reasoning, single parents of children of any age are free to kill their children. You need to start owning what you're writing. That's daffy reasoning.

Exactly how many fathers DIE giving birth?

None. Is that your criteria? A woman needs to die while carrying a child to qualify as the only one with the right to discuss the moral, legal and practical aspects of abortion? So the only people who have the right to discuss this are dead?