I was just reading a post about future Supreme Court nominees, and how it's important to be sure another conservative isn't nominated and I thought ...

Ironic, isn't it, that we can vote to outlaw smoking in bars (my city just outlawed smoking in cigar stores too), but we're not allowed to vote against abortion rights? I assume the sole objection to another conservative Supreme Court justice is the fear that the Court will overturn Roe v Wade and abortions will be outlawed everywhere in the country. Actually, IF Roe v Wade were overturned after 40+ years (extremely unlikely), it would merely ALLOW individual States to decide for themselves. Utah could ban abortion - Massachusetts could allow it - no problem.

Are there any other reasons to fear a conservative Court, bound to uphold strict Constitutional Law, instead of "interpreting" it?

I am against outlawing abortion, but I think the majority of citizens in any State should have the right to vote for themselves.

my bad,
Modified by BigMACKenzie at 6:34 AM 6/21/2008

96qowner wrote:Ironic, isn't it, that we can vote to outlaw smoking in bars (my city just outlawed smoking in cigar stores too), but we're not allowed to vote against abortion rights?

But your viewpoint is certainly clear

BigMACKenzie wrote:... the legislative branch run by a bunch of loony bin "my god is a big white guy with a beard in the clouds" r-tards who cant understand separation of church and state as well as free will and individual responsibility and accountability?

Side note:F*CK conservatives and their pushy horse sh*t

I suspect people don't spend a lot of time discussing anything with you. Thanks anyway for the input.

96Qowner wrote:I was just reading a post about future Supreme Court nominees, and how it's important to be sure another conservative isn't nominated and I thought ...

Ironic, isn't it, that we can vote to outlaw smoking in bars (my city just outlawed smoking in cigar stores too), but we're not allowed to vote against abortion rights? I assume the sole objection to another conservative Supreme Court justice is the fear that the Court will overturn Roe v Wade and abortions will be outlawed everywhere in the country. Actually, IF Roe v Wade were overturned after 40+ years (extremely unlikely), it would merely ALLOW individual States to decide for themselves. Utah could ban abortion - Massachusetts could allow it - no problem.

Are there any other reasons to fear a conservative Court, bound to uphold strict Constitutional Law, instead of "interpreting" it?

I am against outlawing abortion, but I think the majority of citizens in any State should have the right to vote for themselves.

For what it's worth, I don't really support the idea of wholesale smoking bans any more than I support the idea of outlawing abortions. I'm of the mind that "no smoking sections" are just fine and I think that altogether banning the practice in entire cities and counties was done just out of spite and social engineering.

I support ALL personal liberties that do not infringe on the liberties of others, and that includes the right to an abortion, the right to own firearms, the right to smoke weed in one's own home, the right to privacy of one's own records, and many others.

Anyway, there are other reasons for me not to want another reflexively conservative Supreme Court justice, such as ammendments against gay marriage, the idea of mandatory prayer in schools, and other "moral majority" talking points.

The problem with letting States decide is the same as letting the nation decide, just on a smaller scale. Ultimately, it's a question of the WILL of the majority infringing upon the RIGHTS of the minority. Why should society be able to stop someone from doing something that isn't harming anyone else? Do you want them to tell you to stop owning firearms and fast V8 automobiles? Isn't less regulation better? Why not be fair about it?

To skip up to my 3rd paragraph, gay marriage is an issue that I raise fairly often and it's one that I'm particularly passionate about for the reason that outlawing it sets a VERY DANGEROUS legal precedent. In theory, any one citizen of these United States is equal to any other, and thus telling one group of citizens that they can't marry another is a form of segregation. It would then be absolutely positively no different for the courts to say, for instance, that blacks and whites can't intermarry, et cetera. A citizen is a citizen and it needs to remain that way, no differentiations (minors notwithstanding, for obvious reasons). Just in case anyone was wondering why I always bring it up.

I'm not really sure the members of this forum appreciate the battle that was fought to get it. NICO administrators felt that having a political forum would result in ill feelings between posters, even name calling. It took me some time and a few emails to convince them that we were adults and that we could all behave as adults. I expect adult level conversation. If you wouldn't say it to your mother, it isn't appropriate here.

When another mod edits a post in this forum, he does it with my blessing and support and I'm going to back him every time. I don't want to lose this forum and the avenue it gives us to discuss interesting issues becasue some members can't keep it a step above.

Please respect this forum and it's rules. I can't say this any nicer.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:For what it's worth, I don't really support the idea of wholesale smoking bans any more than I support the idea of outlawing abortions. I'm of the mind that "no smoking sections" are just fine and I think that altogether banning the practice in entire cities and counties was done just out of spite and social engineering.

I'm in total agreement with your post except for the part I bolded. No smoking sections are fine so long as they are completely separated from me. However, many non-smokers who work in facilities that would allow smoking to occur may not appreciate that either. CA banned smoking indoors in any business that has employees. It's been years since that has been imposed and it really doesn't appear to have affected smokers that much.

I have noticed however, that I can go out to play some pool, hang out at a bar, or go to a club and I come back smelling like I did when I walked in. It used to be that I always came home smelling like cigarettes. For years, my mom thought I was a smoker. I think even many smokers here find it is much nicer this way too.

Not to stereotype, but I also find most smokers are pretty thoughtless. Fill your lungs with it all you want, I could care less. But stop throwing your ash and butts on the floor or out your window.

96Qowner wrote:I was just reading a post about future Supreme Court nominees, and how it's important to be sure another conservative isn't nominated and I thought ...

Ironic, isn't it, that we can vote to outlaw smoking in bars (my city just outlawed smoking in cigar stores too), but we're not allowed to vote against abortion rights? I assume the sole objection to another conservative Supreme Court justice is the fear that the Court will overturn Roe v Wade and abortions will be outlawed everywhere in the country. Actually, IF Roe v Wade were overturned after 40+ years (extremely unlikely), it would merely ALLOW individual States to decide for themselves. Utah could ban abortion - Massachusetts could allow it - no problem.

Are there any other reasons to fear a conservative Court, bound to uphold strict Constitutional Law, instead of "interpreting" it?

I am against outlawing abortion, but I think the majority of citizens in any State should have the right to vote for themselves.

Overturning an existing decision is extremely unlikely. Typically, if the issue were to be addressed again, the court would look to "reinterpret" what the decision said, or limit the reach of it.

Interesting thing about the smoking ban. Several beach communities near me have outlawed smoking in public, including the beach. They have also outlawed alcohol on the beach too.

Abortion issues are probably not changing anytime soon. If they were to change, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so, and even then, it would have to be worded to avoid the reach of Row V. Wade.

I worked for the welfare department for a few years right out of college. I worked in the Medi-cal division. There, I had the obligation to grand aid to pregnant 15 year olds so they could get abortions. Their parents were never notified. When you see the same 15 year old girl having her 3rd. abortion (called TABS in the lingo - therapeutic abortion) you really wonder if a good std isn't a better solution to her propensity towards sex.

I wondered how many teenagers would have come back for the 3rd. abortion had their parents been advised of the 1st. one.

96Qowner wrote:I was just reading a post about future Supreme Court nominees, and how it's important to be sure another conservative isn't nominated and I thought ...

Ironic, isn't it, that we can vote to outlaw smoking in bars (my city just outlawed smoking in cigar stores too), but we're not allowed to vote against abortion rights? I assume the sole objection to another conservative Supreme Court justice is the fear that the Court will overturn Roe v Wade and abortions will be outlawed everywhere in the country. Actually, IF Roe v Wade were overturned after 40+ years (extremely unlikely), it would merely ALLOW individual States to decide for themselves. Utah could ban abortion - Massachusetts could allow it - no problem.

Are there any other reasons to fear a conservative Court, bound to uphold strict Constitutional Law, instead of "interpreting" it?

I am against outlawing abortion, but I think the majority of citizens in any State should have the right to vote for themselves.

There is a big problem with appointing conservative supreme court justices.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...FAULT

We cannot risk the overturning of Roe vs Wade.We need sex education in public schools to teach the young next generation not only how to be responsible adults but STD's as well.Condoms should also be available to reduce teen pregnancy.Obama just gave a speech on being a responsible parent and raising children in a two parent household. Taxpayers often end up footing the bill for unwanted children. Those that speak the loudest against abortion don't seem to be willing to pay to raise these unwanted children.We need to keep religion out of our public schools and keeping conservative justices out of our supreme court will benefit society and all Americans.

Can anyone say they or this country is better off now then before Bush took office? I don't think so.

Telcoman

The same works when I re-quote it like so:

telcoman wrote:Can anyone say they or this country is better off now then before Democrats took the House? I don't think so.

Telcoman

I'll ok abortion only as long as I'm allowed to freely kill murderers.

I'd also like the freedom to castrate rapists and severely beat thieves without repercussion.

mtcookson wrote:The same works when I re-quote it like so:

I'll ok abortion only as long as I'm allowed to freely kill murderers.

I'd also like the freedom to castrate rapists and severely beat thieves without repercussion.

mtcookson

Well the democrats are attempting to get us out of a useless war that has killed over 4k Americans mostly in your age group. We've wasted over a trillion dollars that you and your children are going to have to pay for. Part of the run up in gasoline prices are the result of a declining value in the dollar on world markets.The democrats are also trying to obtain some sort of universal health care passed so everyone in the United States will have healthcare. They are also attempting to roll back the Bush tax cuts that seemed to benefit the wealthiest 1% who did not need it nor ask for the tax cuts.We mostly abandoned Afganistan while stretched very thin in Iraq. Osama is still alive. How do you explain that he is still running around after Bush stated after nine eleven that we will bring to justice the people that destroyed the World Trade Center?

No disrespect to you but why should you have the right to kill anyone?Many poor US citizens have spent many years in prison on rape charges that after DNA testing became available years later were released. Many eye witness testimony was later found to be false.

We have a constitution and a criminal justice system in this country that many have given their lives for. Telcoman

mtcookson wrote:The same works when I re-quote it like so:

I'll ok abortion only as long as I'm allowed to freely kill murderers.

I'd also like the freedom to castrate rapists and severely beat thieves without repercussion.

Define murderer?

And castrating rapist, that should be the sole right of the raped.

Beating thieves - perfectly permissable if you catch them stealing. We had a slew of vehicle break ins in our neighborhood years ago. The cop suggested we keep an eye out and if we found someone, call the cops, then we could beat the living crap out of him, and of course, report that he kept trying to escape.

96Qowner wrote:I am against outlawing abortion, but I think the majority of citizens in any State should have the right to vote for themselves.

Since an abortion ban disproportionately affects women the state needs to have a compelling interest in it's passage, and the law must be exhaustively narrowly tailored towards that interest.

Abortion bans don't fit those requirements regardless of how the majority of a state votes. The "state interest" is hazy, and the best method of achieving it is equally debatable.

rn79870 wrote:I worked for the welfare department for a few years right out of college. I worked in the Medi-cal division. There, I had the obligation to grand aid to pregnant 15 year olds so they could get abortions. Their parents were never notified. When you see the same 15 year old girl having her 3rd. abortion (called TABS in the lingo - therapeutic abortion) you really wonder if a good std isn't a better solution to her propensity towards sex.

I wondered how many teenagers would have come back for the 3rd. abortion had their parents been advised of the 1st. one.

That's a catch 22 if I ever saw one. How many of these girls would get a safe abortion knowing her parents would be notified.

My thought is parents need to keep an open line of communication going with their children. Regardless of how much they disapprove of something their children does, their children should be able to talk to their own parents about it. Afterall, who better to trust and get good advice from(arguably).

Surely, parenting is no easy task and difficult decisions must be made. But if I had to choose between my daughter's future and putting her on birth control and teaching her about safe sex, I'd choose the latter in a heart beat. Ultimately, its her decision to make regardless of my approval. I would hope she could come talk to me about it, before or after the deed.

Unfortunately, when the girls came in for a medical grant for an abortion, one of the questions we had to ask was whether they wanted a referral to a organization like planned parenthood for birth control. They almost without doubt declined, stating that their parents would catch them with birth control devices, and that it was better to have an abortion so they wouldn't find out about.

The bottom line is that a parent of a 15 year old needs to be much more aware of where their kid is, who she is with and when she will come home. I'm assuming that most of these parents just couldn't be bothered.

We decry that our Government holds suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay denying their habeas corpus rights.

We think its uncivilized to execute harden Prisoners convicted in a court of law and we even have the Supreme Court hearing a case if the State executes prisoners in a human manner.

Yet no one here even mentioned the rights of an unborn child to life. We afford harden criminals more rights when they are executed than unborn children. If we were to execute prisoners using abortion techniques, we would rip/cut them from limb to limb.

Until we can guarantee the sanctity of life for unborn children, all other rights are pretty much irrelevant.

Cold_Zero wrote:We decry that our Government holds suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay denying their habeas corpus rights.

Yes, I agree with that "decry". I think violating Habeas Corpus with imprisonment for years is unwarranted.

Cold_Zero wrote: We think its uncivilized to execute harden Prisoners convicted in a court of law and we even have the Supreme Court hearing a case if the State executes prisoners in a human manner.

Nope, I do not agree that that "thought". I am perfectly in favor of the Death Penalty for certain situations.

Cold_Zero wrote:Yet no one here even mentioned the rights of an unborn child to life. We afford harden criminals more rights when they are executed than unborn children. If we were to execute prisoners using abortion techniques, we would rip/cut them from limb to limb.

Here is where I find myself in a kind of "middle of the road" situation. An uncomfortable one!

I strongly believe that abortion is never a trivially considered alternative to birth control. As mentioned in another post, if a 15 year old girl comes in for her 3rd abortion, then I would love to advocate an additional result ... like tying her damn Fallopian tubes off as part of the process, so that there is no 4th occurrence! Maybe, also doing the same - well, not Fallopian tubes, but you get the idea - to the guy involved. Particular if it is the same guy each time!

Yet, at the same time, I can see the need for the procedure under certain conditions. Victims of rape, etc. And, in situations where the financial burden of an accidental pregnancy might be prohibitive. Why let the future child suffer through poverty or lack of care because of circumstances that were not controlled by that future child? Our world is already overcrowded anyway.

Finally, and this is the most important point, I believe (and please understand that this is my belief and I am not forcing it on you) that it is not my place or the law's place or the President's place or the Congress's place or the Senate's place ... to make the decision.

The mother - provided she is of adult age - is the right person to make the call after proper consultation with a Doctor or counsellor or family members. Whoever it makes sense to discuss with.

That is why I think it is safer to keep it legal than drive it underground. Where, the procedure is not properly performed, and puts the mother at risk.

Cold_Zero wrote:Until we can guarantee the sanctity of life for unborn children, all other rights are pretty much irrelevant.

Now that is not a bad thought per se, but the line is fuzzier than we might all like!

Many questions arise: is a sperm a potential unborn child? If so, then masturbatlon by guys is a big problem! Is an ovary a potential unborn child? If so, then menstruation becomes problematic - should we try mothers every month (like some cultures effectively used to) ? Is a zygote a potential unborn child? If so, then a miscarriage becomes murder, or negligence perhaps on the part of the mother. Is an emergency caesarean (due to a mother having medical problems perhaps) that results in the death of the fetus cause for trying the doctor for murder or negligence?

Yes, these are somewhat artificial questions (or actually the outcomes I postulate) in some ways. But, they are real-life situations that occur today and affect the discussion here quite directly.

I think that if we try to make things too far in one direction, then we are likely to declare some activities illegal that might otherwise not be badly intentioned. And, it is the "intention" of the situation that matters to me.

Right now, we have a certain definition of what is legal abortion, and while I am personally uncomfortable with it, I think it is also the best compromise of a tough situation. I'd rather not see it change in either direction ... too much room for error in not getting it right!

Z

szhosain wrote:Finally, and this is the most important point, I believe (and please understand that this is my belief and I am not forcing it on you) that it is not my place or the law's place or the President's place or the Congress's place or the Senate's place ... to make the decision.

The mother - provided she is of adult age - is the right person to make the call after proper consultation with a Doctor or counsellor or family members. Whoever it makes sense to discuss with.

I am sure that people will think I am 'simplistic' and being narrow minded. But seriously man, do you really see how insane it is to boil it down to a choice and feel so detached that from the situation?

If I pulled out a gun on my property and put it to the head of my 3 year old daughter and told you I was going to end her life because it was "my choice."And used some of the excused that people give for obtaining an abortion, "I can't raise her, I can't afford to have a child, I want a career or go to college...." I bet that you and the police would disagree that it was my choice to terminate her life.

Look I am not a rabid (ends justify the means) pro lifer. I find it very ironic and puzzling that our society will go out of their way to guarantee rights of humans, criminals and animals and yet an unborn children are "Unter Menschen."

I also find it that 70-80% of the justification for abortion (incest, rape and the threat to the mother's health) make up less than 7% of all abortions in this country.

szhosain wrote:Yet, at the same time, I can see the need for the procedure under certain conditions. Victims of rape, etc. And, in situations where the financial burden of an accidental pregnancy might be prohibitive. Why let the future child suffer through poverty or lack of care because of circumstances that were not controlled by that future child? Our world is already overcrowded anyway.

Now you are starting to sound like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and an avid Nazi sympathizer).

I was reluctant to post about this.. and now I am thinking I probably should have stayed out of the conversation. I am not trying to attack you man. I just get frustrated with this whole issue.

Quote »Many questions arise: is a sperm a potential unborn child? If so, then masturbatlon by guys is a big problem! Is an ovary a potential unborn child? If so, then menstruation becomes problematic - should we try mothers every month (like some cultures effectively used to) ? Is a zygote a potential unborn child? If so, then a miscarriage becomes murder, or negligence perhaps on the part of the mother. Is an emergency caesarean (due to a mother having medical problems perhaps) that results in the death of the fetus cause for trying the doctor for murder or negligence?[/quote]Now this is a conversation that we can have. But most of my answers will be so religiously based that I am afraid I will break the No Religion Debates rule. I think that some of these "questions" you have to admit are ridiculous.

There is one problem with abortion that receives little attention. When a woman has one, it solves the immediate problem for many, however, it compounds over the years and one day she wakes up and realizes what she has done and looks at it differently. I've seen several examples where women have had extreme remorse in later life for what they did years before. Maybe this is something that the clinics need to address before they go ahead with their procedures.

Something I use to hear more of back in the 1990's but what are the medical implications on the woman having an abortion? Something that has been dropped as a concern.

You are right, what will be the psychological impacts of it too. bud

Cold_Zero wrote:Something I use to hear more of back in the 1990's but what are the medical implications on the woman having an abortion? Something that has been dropped as a concern.

You are right, what will be the psychological impacts of it too. bud

Cold_Zero

This is not an issue the federal government should be involved in. Neither should any religious or other groups for that matter.The abortion issue is between the woman, her husband or partner, and her doctors. It is no one else's business. If the child is unplanned, unwanted, medically deformed, or going to place an undue financial hardship on the family it is a decision best left to those in the family. Any church or group trying to impose their beliefs on others better be prepared to step up and provide both medical and financial support if they are going to urge a young woman to have a child she cannot afford or want. I don't see that happening. BTW unborn children have no rights. The parents of the unborn have rights whether or not to have that child. After birth the child has rights as a minor as a citizen under the constitution of the United States.

Telcoman

The ironic thing is that California allows prosecution for the killing of a fetus. An example would be a person kills a pregnant woman and gets charged with the crime of killing the fetus. However, if the woman chooses to do so, she gets a pass.

Secondly, I think I have no problem with abortion under certain circumstances, (rape, incest, etc) however, merely not being able to afford a child is (and shouldn't) be a reason to abort one. There are plenty of people willing to assume the obligation of raising a child. Why not allow those people to assume the obligation.

That's my 2 cents.

Again, 70 percent of the justifications for keeping abortion legal make up less than 10% of the reasons why abortions are sought.....I dont think anyone has a problem granting abortions for the purposes for Rape, Incest and Risk of Health.

Cold_Zero wrote:Now this is a conversation that we can have. But most of my answers will be so religiously based that I am afraid I will break the No Religion Debates rule. I think that some of these "questions" you have to admit are ridiculous.

This is where the pro-life community runs into issues getting their ideas enacted as policy. No religious justification can be used to tell people not to do something.

There NEEDS to be an objective, scientific, SECULAR "rule" on when "life begins", because nothing else will hold up to judicial scrutiny.

At some point, the fetus becomes self-aware and this should be considered the point at which "life begins", so to speak. This probably happens at some point during the second trimester, and is the earliest the fetus could live outside the womb with other support systems. Any earlier than that and it's just a bundle of cells with no sensory organs or cognition, and removing it really shouldn't be considered any different than removing, say, an ovarian cyst.

Granted, I am NOT a doctor, and I don't claim to know precisely when this happens, but I'm just laying out what seems to make sense to me from a purely rational perspective.

I think that having a rule like this would also help to enforce a ban on third-trimester "partial birth" abortions, which I think are really inexcusable in any and all cases (even rape or incest, you've had SIX MONTHS) aside from "life of the mother", as by this point it really and truly is a thinking, feeling human being.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:There NEEDS to be an objective, scientific, SECULAR "rule" on when "life begins", because nothing else will hold up to judicial scrutiny.

At some point, the fetus becomes self-aware and this should be considered the point at which "life begins", so to speak. This probably happens at some point during the second trimester, and is the earliest the fetus could live outside the womb with other support systems. Any earlier than that and it's just a bundle of cells with no sensory organs or cognition, and removing it really shouldn't be considered any different than removing, say, an ovarian cyst.

Granted, I am NOT a doctor, and I don't claim to know precisely when this happens, but I'm just laying out what seems to make sense to me from a purely rational perspective.

I think that having a rule like this would also help to enforce a ban on third-trimester "partial birth" abortions, which I think are really inexcusable in any and all cases (even rape or incest, you've had SIX MONTHS) aside from "life of the mother", as by this point it really and truly is a thinking, feeling human being.

And this is a great summary of the Roe v Wade ruling itself In case anyone has been arguing without having read it.

I do think that "life" exists well before viability though, surely a fetus can be self-conscious yet still fully dependent. A newborn is no more able to live unassisted than a fetus, birth is just a change of venue.

sensibleS13driver wrote:I do think that "life" exists well before viability though, surely a fetus can be self-conscious yet still fully dependent.

Yeah, which is why I say that there needs to be some conclusive scientific ruling on when real self-awareness occurs.

It may well differ from case to case and thus require an examination to conclude, which would be fine.

And yes, as Caleb said, what I outlined basically IS RvW, i.e. it does NOT provide for any sort of federal protection for partial-birth abortions, at least as far as I'm aware, and it hinges on "viability", although as I mentioned above, I don't necessarily think that should be the standard.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:
I think that having a rule like this would also help to enforce a ban on third-trimester "partial birth" abortions, which I think are really inexcusable in any and all cases (even rape or incest, you've had SIX MONTHS) aside from "life of the mother", as by this point it really and truly is a thinking, feeling human being.

What about when the Dr doesn't have the test results until the 3rd trimester informing the parents that the child will be born with brain damage? Tough decision for the parents but neither the federal government or any other group should force those parents to have that child.I certainly do not want my tax dollars supporting a semi vegtable with hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of dollars in medical care.We as the richest country can't seem to provide medical coverage for all of our citizens so why add such huge costs?If a private group or church wants to assume this burden, feel free to volunteer but don't try to force the financial burden on others.

Telcoman

But where do we draw the line. Brain damage? What about genetic predisposition to cancer or heart disease? What about families that just want boys, and not girls? What about red heads vs. blonds? You might be opening a door to a bigger problem than it solves.

rn79870 wrote:But where do we draw the line. Brain damage? What about genetic predisposition to cancer or heart disease? What about families that just want boys, and not girls? What about red heads vs. blonds? You might be opening a door to a bigger problem than it solves.

The line gets drawn with medical professionals, the parents, and family.

Government and religion have no business getting involved. We have separation of church and state that the framers of our constitution wisely incorporated so lets keep it that way.If any group or individual family is opposed to abortion that is fine, don't have one. Just don't try to force your beliefs on others and be responsible enough to provide all the emotional and financial support to raise your child.Lets keep government out of the bedroom. Remember the mess the government made of Terry Schievo

Telcoman

Cold_Zero wrote:I am sure that people will think I am 'simplistic' and being narrow minded. But seriously man, do you really see how insane it is to boil it down to a choice and feel so detached that from the situation?

I agree that it is frustrating. Because, like I think I said, I don't want it to be a trivialized choice. Where it gets treated a form of birth control. Not what I want at all.

Cold_Zero wrote:If I pulled out a gun on my property and put it to the head of my 3 year old daughter and told you I was going to end her life because it was "my choice."And used some of the excused that people give for obtaining an abortion, "I can't raise her, I can't afford to have a child, I want a career or go to college...." I bet that you and the police would disagree that it was my choice to terminate her life.

Part of the difficulty lies in defining when life starts ...

Yeah ... religion sees it one way, the problem is that there are other viewpoints too.

I am reminded of what I remember hearing once (and I don't know if it is true): in some Oriental societies, the birthday of a child is considered to be 9 months before the actual delivery. At least in this one well-defined situation, they clearly believed that fetuses are truly alive in every sense of the word.

Cold_Zero wrote:Now you are starting to sound like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and an avid Nazi sympathizer).

Ewww ... I hope I am not like her!

Cold_Zero wrote:Now this is a conversation that we can have. But most of my answers will be so religiously based that I am afraid I will break the No Religion Debates rule. I think that some of these "questions" you have to admit are ridiculous.

Oh, of course, the "questions" I wrote are made up and quite ridiculous.

The problem is that these are very similar to ones that many societies and cultures use to make statements about abortion and women, etc. I am just afraid that they will get applied here and that is not a good thing.

This is indeed a tough topic, regardless.

Z

HashiriyaS14 wrote:
This is where the pro-life community runs into issues getting their ideas enacted as policy. No religious justification can be used to tell people not to do something.

I would like to point out that I have mentioned NOTHING about punishments for having an abortion, passing laws to make it illegal or pushing my religious beliefs on anyone. I was merely been pointing out the hypocrisy of this society that affords more rights to other groups and animals than unborn children. I just honestly think that our society's view on life is pretty messed up.

Hash, just because I am pro life, Christian and a conservative does not mean that I am a Necon, or have some deluded Reformed/Modern Evangelical notion that God will cut a new covenant with the United States of America if we only all followed His Law. I also think that Modern American Christianity, or as it should be called "American Civil Religion" has more in common with Egalitarianism, Gnosticism and Buddhism than it does with Historical Orthodox Christianity.

If Abortion is to be made illegal, it needs to be done through the correct Constitutional process. And the way this country divided on the issue, I dont see this happening on my lifetime.

telcoman wrote:
Cold_Zero

This is not an issue the federal government should be involved in. Neither should any religious or other groups for that matter.The abortion issue is between the woman, her husband or partner, and her doctors. It is no one else's business. If the child is unplanned, unwanted, medically deformed, or going to place an undue financial hardship on the family it is a decision best left to those in the family. Any church or group trying to impose their beliefs on others better be prepared to step up and provide both medical and financial support if they are going to urge a young woman to have a child she cannot afford or want. I don't see that happening. BTW unborn children have no rights. The parents of the unborn have rights whether or not to have that child. After birth the child has rights as a minor as a citizen under the constitution of the United States.

Telcoman

I guess I can understand why women passionately support abortion for the reason, "Its my body, blah blah blah. I have to wonder though if the reason why guys are so passionately in support of abortion are for selfish reasons, so that no social or personal responsibility is imposed on them.

I can't speak for NJ, but most of the adoption agencies run in Indiana are run by religious organizations. So you just thought the put up or shut up reasoning just make Christians go away? Who runs the Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Who runs orphanages and adoption agencies? Christian Charity organizations are already doing this and I would ad a lot of secular or non religious organizations as well. What I dont understand is why my wife's friends from work had to wait 3 f'ing years to adopt a child? Maybe because they are all the unwanted children are being aborted? Who knows, but there are parents out there ready to adopt. Heck, even China with their one child policy has been exporting their extra children to the United States. I know plenty of personal friends (Christians) that have adopted multiple kids from China, Korea and Guatemala. Some of them *gasp* pay the medical costs of the mother for the pregnancy. So please, that argument is played out.

But you are right in some sense, that unborn children have no rights. A few months ago, in Indianapolis a pregnant bank teller at a Huntington Bank was shot during a robbery. Her twin children died in the womb. Because the children were not 7 months formed, the Marion County Prosecutor cannot file double murder charges. But I am sure the mother of those children probably thinks that she should have had the right to carry her children full term.

But seriously Telcoman, this whole notion that the Church and Christians or anyone religious for that matter should not 'Push their morals or ideologies' on anyone is totally ridiculous. You do realize that even before the founding of this country, on up through the founding of this country (most of the Founding Fathers were Christians) to most present politicians, use(d) their religious and moral views to guide this country and establish laws. I believe the amendment is "Freedom OF Religion" not Freedom From Religion. But I fail to see how the Separation of Church and State, when it was originally coined for the "Free Exercise Clause" of the Amendment applies to "Not pushing beliefs" on someone. Also, so the Federal government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, yet it can tell her that she cannot use Illicit Narcotics. Or if she attempts to kill herself, she commits a crime. How do you reconcile this?

Sorry guys, I am tried and I just spent 4 hours on the road driving to and from Cincy today.Bud