Senator Kerry: Personal beliefs vs. legislation - Page 6 - 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 07-08-2004, 09:11 AM   #76
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
This is why I have little problem with liberal interpretations of Christianity, because the conservative interpretation makes just as many leaps in logic to suit their ideology.
This is a big problem with religion in general. It's like a buffet. People pick and choose the things that help support their views, and leave the rest.
__________________

__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 09:15 AM   #77
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Why does these keep returning to Christianity-bashing? Some of us are pro-life b/c abortion is wrong, period. Sure, Christianity may also share the same view, but that doesn't mean it's the reasoning behind our views. I know people who are not religious and still vehemently oppose abortion.
I didn't see any Christianity bashing in that statement.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-08-2004, 09:18 AM   #78
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 02:47 PM
I still don't think I've ever heard it was determined that in the earliest stages of a pregnancy you can actually speak of a human life

I always thought some (professors and all) say it is, some say it isn't

so I have a problem when people state you're killing a baby
when as far as I know this isn't a fact

personally I can't fathom wanting an abortion or euthanesia or whatever you can be opposed to when it's about life and death
but as long as we don't have clean cut facts to base our opinions on then someone's own choice should count for something
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 09:59 AM   #79
War Child
 
Leeloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: running to stand still
Posts: 694
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Why does these keep returning to Christianity-bashing? Some of us are pro-life b/c abortion is wrong, period. Sure, Christianity may also share the same view, but that doesn't mean it's the reasoning behind our views. I know people who are not religious and still vehemently oppose abortion.
Why does that always have to be thrown into it? Why is it that people who believe abortion is wrong are always assumed to be Bible thumping right wing Christians? That is a stereotype. I don't even go to church and I think it's wrong. Wrong, not just for me, but for everyone because it is wrong. No one should be allowed to choose something that is wrong. There are laws to stop people with no heart and no conscience from doing certain things, and this should be among them. Roe vs Wade was always a weak, phantom interpretation of the Constitution and it should be overturned.
__________________
"the percentage you're paying is too high priced as you're living beyond all your means, and the man in the suit has just bought a new car from the profits he made on your dreams"
Leeloo is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 10:37 AM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:47 PM
Because inevitably when you start talking about abortion you are discussing issues of life and death. When you have that there comes very serious ethical and theological questions which are inherently divisive. Basically if we were to work from a purely logical standpoint abortion would be permitted under particular circumstances however shouldnt be a common feature of a society. The debates themselves however lose logic and people begin to take their beliefs too far and enforce them with no compromise (Embryonic Stem Cell Research would be an example of this) this is the problem. I hate to say it but the world is grey, there is still right and wrong in this world however most situations are very murky. I say this, having a later abortion (I am not familiar with the timings or such things I know that there are obvious limits) on a fetus with no abnormalities and not a product of rape would not be a good thing. Hovever this is not to say that I would be in support of any blanket ban because that is simply short sighted and ignorant. When you have issues of rape and incest then abortion is most certainly an option that I don't think anybody here could legitimately argue against. If you have a fetus with severe abnormalities then it is also a legitimate option. If the quality of life for a child would be awful then I don't think that its a bad thing. There should be limits but fundamentaly you cannot attempt to enforce draconian blanket rulings on issues that have such far reaching social and ethical effects.

There are rights for all parties involved but I get a real problem when religious groups push their agenda upon society, if they do not want abortion to be practiced then by all means preach to the congregation not to (but be prepared for concequinces if such a policy winds up injuring or killing somebody). Abortion is not a good thing, it is a sad and traumatic thing that should only be done in certain circumstances where it removes undue suffering for the mother as well as the potential child so for the sake of the millions of women the world over who suffer because of pointless religious interference we must all ensure that it is allowed to go on and that the underlying problems within society that lead to high rates of abortion may be solved. Abortions of choice could be considered a solution to a problem, find another solution (such as stemming the problem) and you will find that the entire debate becomes more focused and legitimate.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 11:27 AM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


It shouldn't be taken away at all. Personally, I would agree that if a woman's going to have an abortion, it'd be better to do it early on in the pregnancy. But I also know that there's still things that can happen late in the pregnancy that would warrant her having an abortion, so the choice should remain open the whole 9 months.



No, it's taking a life that is developing. Again, it is not a full-fledged baby from the moment it's conceived.

Angela
Humans keep developing well after birth. A logical extension of your statements would allow a mother to kill their child anytime before they move out on their own.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 12:18 PM   #82
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 01:47 PM

The whole 9 months? That's hard core. Damn. Babies can be viable outside the womb as soon as about 22 weeks, so you're are talking about actual murder here. Even most people who support first trimester abortion have problems with the whole 9 months. Most legal doctors won't even perform them, and the ones who do are nothing more than butchers. To me, any doctor who could perform such a 'procedure' or any 'woman' who would desire it are just as much murderers as someone who shoots or stabs someone to death. The baby is delivered alive, then killed. Tell me that's not murder most foul.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 12:28 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:47 PM
No way you can allow an abortion late in pregnancy unless there are very, very serious complications. I am pro-choice but that is essentially killing, again draw line there with necessity.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 01:36 PM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 07:47 AM
nbcrusader, again, I was referring to the developing of organs and all that stuff. Screaming Flower corrected me some on that stuff, but that's still what I was referring to. All the necessary organs may be there that early, but they have 9 months in which they're in the woman's body, that means they still have a lot to go through before they're a full-fledged baby.

Also, I realize some people can be born premature and manage to have a healthy life, but there's lots of premature babies that do have health problems, and it's because they hadn't gotten a chance to fully develop into a baby.

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No way you can allow an abortion late in pregnancy unless there are very, very serious complications. I am pro-choice but that is essentially killing, again draw line there with necessity.
Well, that's what I was getting at when I was referring to the situations that would warrant it. Personally, I agree that if that decision is to be made, it should be made very early on. But the choice still should be open the entire time for those who have something come up late in the pregnancy such as what you mentioned-the serious complications that could arise if they went through with the pregnancy. Sorry about any confusion there.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 01:39 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:47 PM
Yes but no abortion because they decided that they just don't want to have a child that far into the pregnancy.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 02:12 PM   #86
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart

There is a huge difference between an innocent baby and a cold blooded murderer or a vicious serial killer. The death penalty is reserved for only the most heinous of murderous crimes. There has to be some kind of deterrant! No one who would take someone else's life on purpose deserves to keep their own. The baby has done nothing wrong, hasn't even had a chance!
I agree that vicious serial killers and rapists should get what they deserve (ie a death worthy of the ones they have committed). It's only human to feel that way. BUT it has been proven over and over again that the death penalty is not a deterrant.

Pro-Death Penalty people never seem to address the issue of what happens when INNOCENT people are put to death! It's easier now with DNA tests, but there are still cases where innocent people go to jail and worse yet, face the death penalty. This should never under any circumstances happen. They are just as entitled to be alive as that collection of cells known as an embryo that you are so rabidly defending.

But even if they *were* all guilty....I thought the whole point of being pro-life was that you were supposed to be protecting ALL life at any cost and that every life has value? Because if we get to pick and choose then the same rules should apply to the embryo that threatens the life of an innocent rape victim for example.

I really wonder (and this is not directed at you, it's just a continuation of the thought), what some of the people in here who are soooooo principled - they wouldn't ever THINK about an abortion (especially if it doesn't affect them personally!) would do if someone they loved - a wife, daughter, sister - faced serious complications or death as a result of an unwanted pregnancy, or even a wanted one for that matter. Wouldn't they want to do anything to save her life?

Would they actually be able to believe that a collection of cells, perhaps those from a rapist, is ultimately more important than the love of their life...a fully fledged living, feeling woman?

If so, that really boggles my mind.
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 03:45 PM   #87
Refugee
 
wolfeden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: calm down, cold resides with me. I flee to decemberunderground... as you exhale I breathe in, and sink into the water underground and I'll grow pale without you
Posts: 1,347
Local Time: 08:47 AM
"Never Ever Ever Acceptable"

Okay, so you're saying a happily married mother of 3 kids should LET HERSELF DIE for, say, a misdeveloped product of gestation that can't even be called a fetus (a birth "defect" called a hyatidiform mole, where the genetic tissue does not form a human body), the birth process of which can cause the mother to bleed to death, or an anencephalic (developed without a brain or spinal chord) fetus with a complication of severe pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes?

Educate yourself on the reality of these things - the true hazards and complications of pregnancy, labor, and delivery, before you pronounce yourself judge, jury and executioner to these women.

And with your point of view, I hope you never have to go through it yourself, looking your own kids in the eye as you tell them Mommy's going to die because she doesn't believe in abortion.....
__________________
wolfeden is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 03:46 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
nbcrusader, again, I was referring to the developing of organs and all that stuff. Screaming Flower corrected me some on that stuff, but that's still what I was referring to. All the necessary organs may be there that early, but they have 9 months in which they're in the woman's body, that means they still have a lot to go through before they're a full-fledged baby.
Again, why draw the line at 9 months of gestation?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 04:04 PM   #89
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Not speaking for Angela, but you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE, and I would say there should be priority in lifesaving for a fully functioning adult over an up to 9 month old fetus/baby if necessary to save the mother's life!

Obviously the older the fetus gets, the worse the situation is. No one is saying it's a pleasant option. But the mother can have more children. Once the mother's gone, that's it.
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 04:10 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Saving a mother's life is a separate issue as it is a generally accepted defense to murder (even from Biblical times).

Killing for convenience still has no rational dividing line.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader 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 08:47 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