The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Let's say 80% of Americans believe that killing one month old babies is okay. The law is passed that allows this. Let's say that you are part of the 20% and are told that no one is making you kill new born babies, people just simply have the choice to do it if they want to. Will you be okay with it? Is there a system where you will ever be okay with it? Will you tolerate what you view to be infanticide to take place? What you are asking is for people to accept nothing less.

No, you are moving the goalposts here Tood, and I'm not gonna bite. We are talking about the difference between a lifeform being "independantly viable" and one that is not. You are attempting to add independant beings here (regardless of the level of care involved in sustaining said independant life, and I KNOW first hand how demanding that is). the "pro-choice" side says NOTHING about infants, it discusses the embryonic or developing feotus ONLY.

The only thing I am doing here is providing a counter to what you are saying. You keep talking about some universal political dream, but the numbers don't lie. The fact is to many abortion is no different than infanticide. The fact is that there is no system that could clear that moral issue, there is no law that can be passed. No government that can absolve the consciences of those who see abortion as infanticide. No one has even provided an idea of such a thing.

I know what you are doing, and I don't blame, nor judge, nor condone you for it, In fact, I salute it because morals, no matter where they derive from serve a purpose, weather X agree's with you or not. They serve to remind us, at least, of what we should value beyond the law.
That still however does not negate the need for some kind of "arbitrary system", does it?

[aretood2]

No, you are moving the goalposts here Tood, and I'm not gonna bite. We are talking about the difference between a lifeform being "independantly viable" and one that is not. You are attempting to add independant beings here (regardless of the level of care involved in sustaining said independant life, and I KNOW first hand how demanding that is). the "pro-choice" side says NOTHING about infants, it discusses the embryonic or developing feotus ONLY.

You are forgetting that to a pro-life person, there is no difference between an infant and an infant that is still in the womb. I was making an analogy, not moving goal posts. You are still unable to see it from that point of view, or refuse to. I don't know which. The issue of their dependence is moot to a pro-life individual. An unborn child is still a child and abortion is infanticide. I just made the definition a bit more clear for you.

I know what you are doing, and I don't blame, nor judge, nor condone you for it, In fact, I salute it because morals, no matter where they derive from serve a purpose, weather X agree's with you or not. They serve to remind us, at least, of what we should value beyond the law.
That still however does not negate the need for some kind of "arbitrary system", does it?

All I am saying is that there is no "one size fits all" answer. It's one or the other in this case due to the issue of the morality, or lack thereof, of abortion/infanticide. You see what I mean? To someone who is pro-life, those two words mean the same exact thing. Do you understand now?

[Gatefan1976]

You are forgetting that to a pro-life person, there is no difference between an infant and an infant that is still in the womb.

I understand that quite well, I have not forgotten that at all dude.

I was making an analogy, not moving goal posts. You are still unable to see it from that point of view, or refuse to. I don't know which. The issue of their dependence is moot to a pro-life individual. An unborn child is still a child and abortion is infanticide. I just made the definition a bit more clear for you.

Have I ONCE said you should not not argue it in the legal / political arena? Geez, I fight for gay rights, so I know exactly what you are saying.
As for not seeing it from the "pro" side, umm, I agree it not right and did say so previously.

All I am saying is that there is no "one size fits all" answer. It's one or the other in this case due to the issue of the morality, or lack thereof, of abortion/infanticide. You see what I mean? To someone who is pro-life, those two words mean the same exact thing. Do you understand now?

Here's the difference though, to err on the side of "choice" removes no ones rights to believe what they choose to, a person who disagree's simply does not have to exercise that particular choice.
Quite simply, you want to legislate a particular morality, and morality should be a choice, not a law.

[Goose]

I find the term "pro-life" to be an odd term. Are people who are not "pro-life" "anti-life"?

[Col.Foley]

ok then yours was an assumption, mine was a meta-assumption. there ya go :|if onlyyou do realize that when you execute an innocent person you're actually committing a double-sin right?

Spoiler:

hey can a bunch of pals & I squat at your house? (justa rhetorical question, we'll barge in anyway. I'll just park the car on your lawn

incidentally, those murderers murder convicts who are being executed, weren't they human babies too at some point?

Not sure what you mean by a double sin but you are generally right when you assume and say the murder is a sin.

[Col.Foley]

I find the term "pro-life" to be an odd term. Are people who are not "pro-life" "anti-life"?

It would stand to reason wouldn't it? Most people who are pro choice for instance don't couch it in they like aborting people they just say that people ought to have the right to do so. So they make it very very very clear that they aren't anti life.

[Gatefan1976]

It would stand to reason wouldn't it? Most people who are pro choice for instance don't couch it in they like aborting people they just say that people ought to have the right to do so. So they make it very very very clear that they aren't anti life.

You mean like People aren't "anti gay", they (gays) just should have less rights than heterosexuals?

[DigiFluid]

They call themselves "pro-lifers" because "anti-choice" doesn't exactly invite followers.

[LtColCarter]

I think I'm a contradiction...I consider myself to be pro-life, but I won't harass someone for making the choice to have an abortion. And I don't feel the government should repeal Roe v Wade...because we'll go back to women going to back alley butchers to get abortions.

[mad_gater]

poppycock! before Roe vs. Wade abortions were still being done, albeit under the radar, by the same doctors who take such pleasure in doing them now and had the same kinds of risks back then as they do now and you're delusional if the wanton murder of an unborn child is any cleaner or safer now than it was all those years ago!

there are a great many active lawsuits against abortion clinics...many of them affiliated with PP about the decidedly unsanitary nature of their abortion facilities

if abortion's so great why do these people gotta lie to these poor women in order to get them to agree to it?

[lordofseas]

I think I'm a contradiction...I consider myself to be pro-life, but I won't harass someone for making the choice to have an abortion. And I don't feel the government should repeal Roe v Wade...because we'll go back to women going to back alley butchers to get abortions.

My own view is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. The education of women throughout the world, specifically teaching the use of contraceptives, would dramatically lower the rate of abortions I think.

But, me thinks you are pro-choice.

[lordofseas]

poppycock! before Roe vs. Wade abortions were still being done, albeit under the radar, by the same doctors who take such pleasure in doing them now and had the same kinds of risks back then as they do now and you're delusional if the wanton murder of an unborn child is any cleaner or safer now than it was all those years ago!

there are a great many active lawsuits against abortion clinics...many of them affiliated with PP about the decidedly unsanitary nature of their abortion facilities

if abortion's so great why do these people gotta lie to these poor women in order to get them to agree to it?

"Radical right wing extremist". Here's a radical idea, use your brain.

[mad_gater]

"Radical right wing extremist". Here's a radical idea, use your brain.

you try using yours...all kinds of scientific proof out there that says that human life begins at conception

abortions are no safer (as if infanticide is OK just because you think you could find a safer way of committing it) now than they were before Roe vs. Wade...the whole back alley coathanger bit was manufactured by PP and their eugenicist ilk to get people to accept legalized infanticide

you know what else will reduce abortions.....teaching people that our sexual organs aren't there for the mere gratification of carnal desires and restoring the inherent dignity of the marital act to its rightful place in society....not that you liberals would believe that....you all believe we are nothing more than dumb animals who lack the capacity to control ourselves

[lordofseas]

you try using yours...all kinds of scientific proof out there that says that human life begins at conception

Is a foetus alive? Sure. But the mother's life, and quality of life is far more important than the foetus' form of life, which is hardly a developed human.

abortions are no safer (as if infanticide is OK just because you think you could find a safer way of committing it) now than they were before Roe vs. Wade...the whole back alley coathanger bit was manufactured by PP and their eugenicist ilk to get people to accept legalized infanticide

You know, I could find this a whole lot less insulting if I didn't know a woman who actually attempted to OD on a cocktail of drugs and alcohol because her Catholic mother said she wasn't allowed to have an abortion because of her beliefs. It's not just coathangers.

The foetus didn't come to term, by the way.

you know what else will reduce abortions.....teaching people that our sexual organs aren't there for the mere gratification of carnal desires and restoring the inherent dignity of the marital act to its rightful place in society....not that you liberals would believe that....you all believe we are nothing more than dumb animals who lack the capacity to control ourselves

If you're talking about abstinence, sure. I have no problem with the teaching of abstinence. It's a very good way to not get pregnant. I have a problem with abstinence only education. Teaching abstinence alone is highly unrealistic for teenagers today. However, sex isn't just a marital act. To say such is to be blind and ignorant of Western culture.

[mad_gater]

I'm not the one whose blind and ignorant.....mainly because I'm not the one taking the lies of the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 60's to heart

Pope Paul VI wrote "Humane Vitae" and stated exactly what would happen if intercourse, the expression of committed love (and the only way to truly commit is in marriage), were to become objectified and I'm seeing exactly his very same predictions being given form and substance in today's "modern" times

rather than treating sex as the ultimate expression of married love between man and woman it has become an instrument for the satisfaction of base and carnal desires and if you can't see that you're the one whose blind and ignorant

a human person is a human person, no matter the stage of his development

rather than listen to her mother then she tried to knowingly commit infanticide and apparently succeeded after a fashion.....fantastic