meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Let's look at it another way. Except in cases of rape, the woman, rather than the "parasite", is the one responsible for the situation. It hardly seems just to give her exclusive authority to decide whether or not to kill it. You get pregnant, it's your responsibility to care for the child. Unless of course you're arguing that it's not a baby, but rather a mass of cells not dissimilar from a tumor, in which case all ethical questions become moot. And that's what bothers me. I'm not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination but I once spoke to a pro-choice zealot and the utter disregard this person had for the child shocked me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well you ignored (or missed) the comment I made above. Canada which is supposed to be the highlight of what liberals believe health care should look like (until they try and get a family doctor of course) doesn't even provide free birth control. It's actually paid out of pocket or provided with employer insurance (sound familiar?). Now that being said, if you want to !@#$ and not pay the consequences, go buy contraceptives. I could care less about Canada I still don't see the point. The point is I'm a liberal so I want Canada? We're talking directly here...you have full access to me. Canada has nothing to do with anything. Canada should provide it if you ask me. I don't care what they do or don't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) My point is the clear ambiguity is whether or not it's "human life" or even "human life...enough." Any sense of humility will compel anybody regardless of their beliefs and no matter how sincere to acknowledge that they are not the final arbiter on that question. Where there is absolutely 0 ambiguity is the known, real world impact outlawing abortion has on the woman with a fertilized egg. Provided you acknowledge that you are not god, there is absolutely nothing conservative, or even really just...about outlawing all abortion. Actually, you're advocating allowing the person who created the situation to be the final arbiter on the issue. Edit: And I've never acknowledged my divinity status one way or another. Edited August 22, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I happen to think birth control is a wonderful thing & I think the Catholic stance is a little loony, but I don't see why they should be compelled to provide it. I just don't see any justification for making that kind of an imposition. That's a whole different subject really. I agree on the Catholic stance is outdated...ultimately as a society we have an unwanted pregnancy problem...not an abortion problem. You would think absent religious dogma that true pro-life people would vigorously support all forms of birth control to everyone as much as they possibly could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I could care less about Canada I still don't see the point. The point is I'm a liberal so I want Canada? We're talking directly here...you have full access to me. Canada has nothing to do with anything. Canada should provide it if you ask me. I don't care what they do or don't do. Well at least we have that in common. (no offense meazza) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Actually, you're advocating allowing the person who created the situation to be the final arbiter on the issue. Edit: And I've never acknowledged my divinity status one way or another. The person who carries a fertilized egg is the final arbiter on the situation as applied to her...v. a group of people in Congress who have never met her, may have nothing in common with her or her beliefs, and have no idea about her situation being the final arbiter... What seems more reasonable once you accept neither party can be fully correct on the issue of human life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well at least we have that in common. (no offense meazza) none taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) It amazes me that the same scientific worshipers of global climate change and the silence of life and dear on this planet are so easily swayed. Edited August 22, 2012 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The person who carries a fertilized egg is the final arbiter on the situation as applied to her...v. a group of people in Congress who have never met her, may have nothing in common with her or her beliefs, and have no idea about her situation being the final arbiter... What seems more reasonable once you accept neither party can be fully correct on the issue of human life? I'm not necessarily saying congress should ban abortion; I'm torn. But it seems reasonable to me that people should accept the responsibility of their actions & since the baby (it's no longer an egg by the time this question is relevant) can't speak for itself it seems very reasonable for the government to step in & protect the life of a potentially innocent child just as it would protect that child if after birth, when it is still essentially a parasite (might be out of the body but requires a parent to provide for ALL its needs), the mother decided to toss it off a cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I'm not necessarily saying congress should ban abortion; I'm torn. But it seems reasonable to me that people should accept the responsibility of their actions & since the baby (it's no longer an egg by the time this question is relevant) can't speak for itself it seems very reasonable for the government to step in & protect the life of a potentially innocent child just as it would protect that child if after birth, when it is still essentially a parasite (might be out of the body but requires a parent to provide for ALL its needs), the mother decided to toss it off a cliff. Yeah, that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I'm not necessarily saying congress should ban abortion; I'm torn. But it seems reasonable to me that people should accept the responsibility of their actions & since the baby (it's no longer an egg by the time this question is relevant) can't speak for itself it seems very reasonable for the government to step in & protect the life of a potentially innocent child just as it would protect that child if after birth, when it is still essentially a parasite (might be out of the body but requires a parent to provide for ALL its needs), the mother decided to toss it off a cliff. The obvious point to make there is once it can live outside the mother it isn't a parasite...maybe you could say it is b/c it needs someone else but anyone can do that job. It is unreasonable for Congress to step in and declare "you have created life now, in the name of the fertilized egg we control you body now through the most intimate process in human history." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The obvious point to make there is once it can live outside the mother it isn't a parasite...maybe you could say it is b/c it needs someone else but anyone can do that job. It is unreasonable for Congress to step in and declare "you have created life now, in the name of the fertilized egg we control you body now through the most intimate process in human history." I'll give you credit. You're a good lawyer. You twist the words well & I'm sure you could slide that one by the !@#$s in the league office, but you don't fool Jesus. There's a fine line (& by fine line I mean big, gaping canyon) between "control your body" and "prohibit you from intentionally killing a [potentially] living being that has come to live in your womb as a result of your decisions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) I'll give you credit. You're a good lawyer. You twist the words well & I'm sure you could slide that one by the !@#$s in the league office, but you don't fool Jesus. There's a fine line (& by fine line I mean big, gaping canyon) between "control your body" and "prohibit you from intentionally killing a [potentially] living being that has come to live in your womb as a result of your decisions". Hehe, I don't know how you are on the fence about Congress banning abortion when you can make a post like this. To you I'm twisting words by saying that a small group of people in Washington would pass judgement that would control what a woman can do with her body in her own reproductive process. To me you are twisting words by talking about Jesus (who doesn't mean anything to me but I'm not casting aspersions on Christians in saying that...just saying) and potentially living beings and personal responsibility (in sex...but not in pregnancy) It's black and white really. Everyone can control their own bodies, and their own reproduction, and they can persuade their neighbors and society that it is moral or just to behave in a certain way...but when they physically control someone else and threaten criminal prosecution and deny services...it's wrong. Edited August 22, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Hehe, I don't know how you are on the fence about Congress banning abortion when you can make a post like this. To you I'm twisting words by saying that a small group of people in Washington would pass judgement that would control what a woman can do with her body in her own reproductive process. To me you are twisting words by talking about Jesus (who doesn't mean anything to me but I'm not casting aspersions on Christians in saying that...just saying) and potentially living beings and personal responsibility (in sex...but not in pregnancy) It's black and white really. Everyone can control their own bodies, and their own reproduction, and they can persuade their neighbors and society that it is moral or just to behave in a certain way...but when they physically control someone else and threaten criminal prosecution and deny services...it's wrong. They already control your body in so many other ways, many of which I oppose (like drug prohibition) but I can't dismiss out of hand the interest of the child, which to me is a far more substantial concern than anything currently used to justify government intrusion. I'm going to call it a night because it's taken me two hours to get through half an episode of Burn Notice & I want to finish it before I crash, & I think we've fleshed this issue out pretty thoroughly. Perhaps we can pick it up on the other side. And BTW, the Jesus reference had absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Edited August 22, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) They already control your body in so many other ways, many of which I oppose (like drug prohibition) but I can't dismiss out of hand the interest of the child, which to me is a far more substantial concern than anything currently used to justify government intrusion. I'm going to call it a night because it's taken me two hours to get through half an episode of Burn Notice & I want to finish it before I crash, & I think we've fleshed this issue out pretty thoroughly. Perhaps we can pick it up on the other side. And BTW, the Jesus reference had absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever. And to just continue posting on auto-pilot...you are free to concern yourself with the interest of your child and other people's children all you want outside the realm of politics. Have at it, wage a culture war, fight for the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens...but on this issue...you don't control them and to speak quite frankly no matter what the conservative movement desires or what anybody says about the likelihood of change in this area...you and Congress never will a change. It just won't ever happen, ever...all this is a waste of time for all pro-life people they're just being manipulated for political gain plain and simple. If they simply focus all their time on private efforts...we would all be much better of including their own movement. Edited August 22, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Hehe, I don't know how you are on the fence about Congress banning abortion when you can make a post like this. To you I'm twisting words by saying that a small group of people in Washington would pass judgement that would control what a woman can do with her body in her own reproductive process. To me you are twisting words by talking about Jesus (who doesn't mean anything to me but I'm not casting aspersions on Christians in saying that...just saying) and potentially living beings and personal responsibility (in sex...but not in pregnancy) It's black and white really. Everyone can control their own bodies, and their own reproduction, and they can persuade their neighbors and society that it is moral or just to behave in a certain way...but when they physically control someone else and threaten criminal prosecution and deny services...it's wrong. A small group of people in Washington? So, are we a representative democracy (republic)or not? Would you say the same thing about them if they were voting for something you favored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 And to just continue posting on auto-pilot...you are free to concern yourself with the interest of your child and other people's children all you want outside the realm of politics. Have at it, wage a culture war, fight for the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens...but on this issue...you don't control them and to speak quite frankly no matter what the conservative movement desires or what anybody says about the likelihood of change in this area...you and Congress never will a change. It just won't ever happen, ever...all this is a waste of time for all pro-life people they're just being manipulated for political gain plain and simple. If they simply focus all their time on private efforts...we would all be much better of including their own movement. It also should follow then that the fiscally conservative against should quit voting for the leftist because of ther stance on abortion. Roe v Wade is "settled law" and will never be overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 forget about the morality issue for a moment and focus on the stupidity of the comment(s) by these politicians. Here's one siding with Akins Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) jumped into the "legitimate rape" fray Tuesday by telling a local reporter that he doesn't personally know of any victims of statutory rape or incest who became pregnant from the attack. If a tree falls in the woods ...... does it make a noise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I refuse to accept the fate of Guam. Now that's funny... Don't worry. I didn't expect anyone to be able to articulate a logical response. I wasn't trying to single you out, you just said what it seems many were thinking. I'm just wishing someone would explain the steps in the logical deduction that arrives at that particular conclusion. What conclusion? That what he said marginalizes rape victims? It's quite logical. If you say "legitimate" rape, you acknowledge the existence of non-"legitimate rape," thereby saying some women (or men for that matter, but not all together applicable here) who were raped weren't really raped. Why does health care include birth control? Even in Canada, it's not free. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/11/15/142358413/the-pill-not-just-for-pregnancy-prevention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 You can be angry for no reason or you can pick a better issue to get riled up about as a partisan maniac. I'm less interested in this issue than I am in pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the left as displayed in the whiny little B word from San Diego. You can not in one breath say that only a woman should be responsible for decisons relating to her womb and then turn around and say "We think they're smart enough to make the decision but too stupid to do anything about it." That is the extent of my dog in this fight. No one is changing anything about abortion any time in the near billion years and the only reason we're having this conversation at all is because a massive dumbass in the middle of BFE said something that finally gave the left the shiny object it desperately needed to once again avoid discussing the real issues facing our country. Period. This topic will also pass and then you'll be stuck trying to explain to everyone, once again, why the economy sucks, millions are out of work, nothing looks to be getting better and the ONLY solution the current administration has about fixing things is once again hoping they can convince a few people to re-fi their homes, take $3000 and but a freaking laptop for their child. But hey...how about that whole abortion thing, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts