'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-23-2007, 10:33 PM   #181
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


is it a sin to be gay?

it is only a sin to have sex outside of hetero marriage

people who are not married
are not entitled to have intimate relations

it is that simple
just don't sin (period)


but if we want to stop abortions, we need to encourage gay sex.

at least one sin (sodomy) won't beget another (abortion).
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 02:57 AM   #182
Acrobat
 
absintheminded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 321
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Excuse me but I'm a woman, and I do believe that Lies and Martha are women, and I just want to clarify that albeit I DO NOT BELIEVE giving birth to a baby and killing it (which I don't believe happens for any other reason than medically)
but I do believe that it's not right for Congress or any politician to decide what is medically allowable for me to have if my pregnancy calls for it.

IF a woman needs a late-term abortion, she needs it and it should be allowed medically and for medical purposes only, and I think that is MORE than 1 in five women here.

Thank you.
__________________

__________________
absintheminded is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 08:15 PM   #183
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Fantastic read:

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspo...-abortion.html
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 11:17 PM   #184
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

(i also want to know why God aborts a large number of zygotes -- it seems that the female womb is a far more dangerous environment for these cellular children than any on earth)
I endorse all of the above, and guess what, most, if not all, of the above conditions already exist in most countries in the EU and yet Britain, Germany and several other European countries STILL have high abortion rates.

There comes a point in time, sooner or later, when even the most fervent pro-abortion advocates will have to realise and accept that sexual irresponsibility - and governments allowing and legislating for said irresponsibility (by permitting the get out clause of abortion) - plays a part in all of this.

But I'd certainly concede that there's an enormous level of hypocrisy in the mind set of some right wingers who demand that abortion be outlawed, but won't give any concessions in terms of sex ed, mandatory availability of maternity leave and those other issues you've outlined.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 11:35 PM   #185
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:13 PM
No individual choice is what plays a part; the government is not nor should be responsible for what consenting parties choose to do in terms of sex or with their bodies in terms of abortion and I think the enforcement of retrogressive social policy to roll back the gains of the sexual revolution is positively authoritarian.

People are irresponsible with sex, amazingly, since it's not not a moral action; it's just a biological action that feels good - the escape clause option might not give a woman that life crippling burden of an unwanted kid that she must obviously deserve.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 11:50 PM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No individual choice is what plays a part;
Individual choice plays a part yes, but it's not the be all and end all. As with many other aspects of our lives, individual choice is (or should be) restricted, on moral/ethical grounds, for example, in cases where the unfettered exercise of individual choice may impinge on the rights of another individual (in this case, the foetus).


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
the government is not nor should be responsible for what consenting parties choose to do in terms of sex or with their bodies in terms of abortion and I think the enforcement of retrogressive social policy to roll back the gains of the sexual revolution is positively authoritarian.
Yes, I'd concede that restricting abortion rights is authoritarian.

Where individuals, or a certain percentage of them, are likely to abuse rights, democratically elected governments (elected by, duly appointed by, and acting on behalf of a collective of individuals) are entitled to restrict them.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 11:58 PM   #187
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:13 PM
But a foetus isn't an person, it is a potential person. The rights of the actual individual (the mother) take priority. Want to save the unborn children then perfect ectogenesis.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 12:15 AM   #188
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But a foetus isn't an person, it is a potential person.
Yes, I think I would probably agree that the foetus isn't a person, in the sense that 'person' is generally understood.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer The rights of the actual individual (the mother) take priority. [/B]
Yes, I'd agree that the rights of the mother take priority.

But that isn't really a sufficient argument to justify legalised abortion on demand.

If we are going to agree that the mother enjoys superior rights to the foetus, the debate then becomes, to what extent (if any) can we assign rights to the foetus?

If you think the foetus has no rights whatever, then naturally you'd accept legalised abortion on demand.

This seems to me a remarkable point of view.

The pro-abortion on demand argument, as I understand it, goes roughly speaking as follows:

- The foetus is not a person, ergo, it qualifies for no rights whatsoever.

- BUT, once the foetus is borne (including presumably cases where it is borne prematurely) automatically, it qualifies for full rights. Purely by changing its physical location (i.e., by being borne) the foetus goes from the (metaphysically speaking) position of being a non-person, to, within a matter of seconds, assuming the position of being a person, fully entitled to all the rights of a person.

I think a detect a slight weakness in this argument.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 12:32 AM   #189
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:13 PM
The weakness in the argument you established is based on the mother being able to give birth and having the baby (once born) survive and thrive; something that is not the case for most of a pregnancy.

It takes time for a foetus to reach a stage where it can survive outside the womb, in that respect it's not much different from a brain dead individual on a respirator; and in those sorts of cases pulling the plug is a choice, usually of family members. Now if were talking about very late stages in pregnancy where the survival rate is reasonable as well as the quality of life if the foetus is delivered then the balance shifts; but if a woman carries until that stage "abortion on demand" doesn't make sense, it is medical neccessity where the life of the mother is at risk.

So define the stage at which abortion on demand is accessable which should be based on the medical evidence and some appraisal of the ethical dillema of balancing rights - which for most of the pregnancy I don't see as existent - and allow medical exceptions for periods after that and possibly some sort of review process for other instances.

Again I reiterate that if ectogenesis was perfected then it would shift the ethics of it; although the ethics of bringing parentless children into the world does get raised.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 09:49 AM   #190
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Yes, I think I would probably agree that the foetus isn't a person, in the sense that 'person' is generally understood.




Yes, I'd agree that the rights of the mother take priority.

But that isn't really a sufficient argument to justify legalised abortion on demand.

If we are going to agree that the mother enjoys superior rights to the foetus, the debate then becomes, to what extent (if any) can we assign rights to the foetus?

If you think the foetus has no rights whatever, then naturally you'd accept legalised abortion on demand.

This seems to me a remarkable point of view.

The pro-abortion on demand argument, as I understand it, goes roughly speaking as follows:

- The foetus is not a person, ergo, it qualifies for no rights whatsoever.

- BUT, once the foetus is borne (including presumably cases where it is borne prematurely) automatically, it qualifies for full rights. Purely by changing its physical location (i.e., by being borne) the foetus goes from the (metaphysically speaking) position of being a non-person, to, within a matter of seconds, assuming the position of being a person, fully entitled to all the rights of a person.

I think a detect a slight weakness in this argument.
No, a braindead fetus has no rights, just like a braindead human pretty much has no rights. In either case, the family decided what to do.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 11:37 AM   #191
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Where did you do your residency?


Afganistan?
Martha, did I ever tell you I love you?
__________________
Golightly Grrl is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 12:01 PM   #192
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

You're going to have to wait a very long time, as am I. And sadly, I'm not the most patient person in the world.

I asked one pro-life (on her blog, not in real life) if she's so pro-life why doesn't she adopt children caught up in the foster care system, or help pregnant women caught up in bad circumstances. Her answer? She doesn't need to adopt because she can have kids of her own (yep, being fertile is such an accomplishment), and why should she help sluts.
__________________
Golightly Grrl is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 01:14 PM   #193
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 11:13 PM
Thanks for the love!

Quote:
Originally posted by Golightly Grrl
why should she help sluts.
It nearly makes me weep when women speak of each other in such self-loathing terms.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 02:25 PM   #194
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Where did you do your residency?

Afganistan?

Martha, did I ever tell you I love you?
Just so we're clear.

Americans overwhelmingly support the ban of this procedure. Of that vast, vast majority of Americans -- very, very few subscribe to the Taliban's treatment of women.

And to even make such a comparison is stupefyingly ignorant.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-28-2007, 03:20 PM   #195
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Re: Thanks for the love!

Quote:
Originally posted by martha


It nearly makes me weep when women speak of each other in such self-loathing terms.
Not to mention, she first got pregnant when she was in high school. Not that teen moms are sluts, but she was hardly virgin pure when she finally got married.

And I thought this article was interesting:
The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion
__________________

__________________
Golightly Grrl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com