so...Mike Huckabee.

[verte76]

Huckabee's trying to force his religious views on everyone. That's not right.

 

[deep]

Some people believe that life begins at conception.

I believe a large portion of them really do not

they just say they believe this

they really want to control other peoples sexual activities
by making sexual relations have unnecessary consequences (potentially)

 

[BVS]

I guess they just do.

Not good enough for me. If you want to make your beliefs law you need something to back it up...

 

[Infinity]

Not good enough for me. If you want to make your beliefs law you need something to back it up...

Oh no, i'm not saying for myself. I personally don't like abortion, especially partial birth abortion. And I have no opinion on life beginning at conception.

 

[martha]

Oh no, i'm not saying for myself. I personally don't like abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

Find one person who "likes" it. Just one. We'll wait.

 

[Infinity]

Find one person who "likes" it. Just one. We'll wait.

OKay, so even if people don't like it or like it, my point is that i'm against partial birth abortion.

 

[nathan1977]

And some people don't.

Some people didn't think black people qualified as living beings either. Did we listen to them?

 

[BVS]

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, don't you think?

 

[nathan1977]

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, don't you think?

Not really. Martha and Infinitum were making their points based on prevalent perspectives/opinions of whether life exists as a basis for defining law. My point was that the whole "some people don't think a baby is/isn't alive in the womb" isn't really a sufficient basis for legislation on either side of the equation, since it's failed us in the past.

 

[BVS]

My point was that the whole "some people don't think a baby is/isn't alive in the womb" isn't really a sufficient basis for legislation on either side of the equation, since it's failed us in the past.

But you compared a living breathing human being that can live on it's own to a developing fetus that if taken out of the womb can't live on it's own. To me they are not the same, to the majority of scientist they are not the same.

So the comparison was a faulty one. An opinion that a black person isn't a living being is based on hate, nothing else. The issue of when a fetus is a living child has nothing to do with that at all, not even close.

 

[martha]

My point was that the whole "some people don't think a baby is/isn't alive in the womb" isn't really a sufficient basis for legislation on either side of the equation, since it's failed us in the past.

What a cop-out. Black Americans were living, breathing people just like white Americans.

If it makes you feel better about caring more for a zygote than the living breathing woman surrounding it, then have at it.

I really don't care all that much if anyone here is anti-choice or not. Just as long as you only enforce your opinions on your own body and not mine.

 

[martha]

Some people didn't think black people qualified as living beings either. Did we listen to them?

Yes. People did all the time. Then people realized that living breathing people were more important than any misguided ideals they were clinging to. Someday the folks who think that the "liberties" of a fetus outweigh my liberties as a human will be just as reviled as the people who thought that black Americans weren't fully people.

 

[martha]

, my point is that i'm against partial birth abortion.

Be against it all you want. But please don't tell the women who need the procedure that somehow your opinions on their medical decisions matter more.

 

[Dreadsox]

Someday the folks who think that the "liberties" of a fetus outweigh my liberties as a human will be just as reviled as the people who thought that black Americans weren't fully people.

So would you be against abortion if there was no medical reason for a mother to have one?

I am confused because if there were no medical reason, why should the value people place on a fetus be any less.

I would support an abortion if the doctor determined there was a valid medical reason for the mother to have one. That is my value of the person over the fetus.

Why is it so wrong to value the fetus up to that point?

 

[martha]

I would support an abortion if the doctor determined there was a valid medical reason for the mother to have one. That is my value of the person over the fetus.

It's a limited value, then. If you feel you have a right to determine what happens to the woman carrying the fetus just because she's now a vessel, then you value the fetus more than the living, breathing woman. Why do you get to make those decisions for a stranger? Why does she have to prove to you, or your representative (a doctor, a panel of strangers appointed by lawmakers) that the pregnancy will not be in her best interests? Why is it anybody's business but hers? Why is it your business?

 

[phillyfan26]

It's a limited value, then. If you feel you have a right to determine what happens to the woman carrying the fetus just because she's now a vessel, then you value the fetus more than the living, breathing woman.

I don't think that's true. I don't think someone believing a fetus to be a living thing is trying to devalue the woman and make her a "vessel." I think if you believe a fetus to be a living thing, you also believe that allowing abortion is allowing people to choose to end a life. So, while I think abortion shouldn't be a federal government issue, I do think you've oversimplified and exxagerated the pro-life view.

 

[martha]

I don't think that's true. I don't think someone believing a fetus to be a living thing is trying to devalue the woman and make her a "vessel."

Then why does the fetus have more "right-to-life" than the woman? Why do strangers get to make decisions for the woman now that she's pregnant? Has her value as an individual suddenly changed?

I think if you believe a fetus to be a living thing, you also believe that allowing abortion is allowing people to choose to end a life.

And so very many people who think this think it's okay for them to interfere with a stranger's life.

So, while I think abortion shouldn't be a federal government issue, I do think you've oversimplified and exxagerated the pro-life view.

Scare yourself shitless and do some research on the people who think my uterus is their business. Then sit back from the comfort of maleness and youth and tell me that again. The few who don't think it should be a government issue are rare. Take a visit to South Dakota and see how many of you there are. See if I'm oversimplifying.

 

[phillyfan26]

Then why does the fetus have more "right-to-life" than the woman? Why do strangers get to make decisions for the woman now that she's pregnant? Has her value as an individual suddenly changed?

And so very many people who think this think it's okay for them to interfere with a stranger's life.

Scare yourself shitless and do some research on the people who think my uterus is their business. Then sit back from the comfort of maleness and youth and tell me that again. The few who don't think it should be a government issue are rare. Take a visit to South Dakota and see how many of you there are. See if I'm oversimplifying.

Unless your definition of "right to life" is different from mine, your first part there doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think that's the motivation in every case. You can't paint every pro-life person with the same brush.

And I think your last paragraph is another case of painting every pro-lifer with the same brush. Also, I don't think accusing me of "taking comfort in my maleness and youth" has any relevance nor is an accurate statement. Just because there are some pro-lifers out there who do have that view for the wrong reasons doesn't mean you need to take it out on the other pro-lifers or me.

 

[martha]

Unless your definition of "right to life" is different from mine, your first part there doesn't make sense to me.

Please clarify your definition then.

I don't think that's the motivation in every case. You can't paint every pro-life person with the same brush.

Then what the hell are they doing?? What else is their motivation?

And I think your last paragraph is another case of painting every pro-lifer with the same brush.

"Pro-life" people want women to have the babies no matter what. Period. The end. I really don't care why they think so. They don't have any business at all in my life. None at all.

Also, I don't think accusing me of "taking comfort in my maleness and youth" has any relevance nor is an accurate statement.

Abortion is a female issue with no exceptions. NONE. The youth thing may have been a cheap shot, but I've been doing this longer than you and I know what these people are like.

Just because there are some pro-lifers out there who do have that view for the wrong reasons

What are the right reasons?

 

[phillyfan26]

Please clarify your definition then.

Then what the hell are they doing?? What else is their motivation?

"Pro-life" people want women to have the babies no matter what. Period. The end. I really don't care why they think so. They don't have any business at all in my life. None at all.

Abortion is a female issue with no exceptions. NONE. The youth thing may have been a cheap shot, but I've been doing this longer than you and I know what these people are like.

What are the right reasons?

Well, when people talk about the "right to life" for a fetus, they mean the right for the opportunity of the fetus to be born and have a chance. And almost everyone agrees that abortions should be allowed when dealing with pregnant women who cannot give birth for medical reasons. So, the right to life is the right for a chance to live, which has already been granted to the woman by being born.

To give the fetus a chance to be born, I imagine.

Your third statement there is an incorrect generalization, because almost everyone agrees about the medical issues.

Again, to your fourth statement, I think if you truly believe that a fetus is living, you wouldn't see it as a gender issue. Not saying that it isn't a gender issue, but some people see it differently.

And for the right reasons, I imagine, again, it's about the fetus and not you.

Not everything I'm saying I agree with, but I'm saying I can see the merit and the reasoning behind these views, and I can respect them. As I can see the merit in your view that it's a woman's issue. However, I think it's important that both sides understand the other side and the different views. I think you are looking too much at a specific group of people with pro-life views and making one pro-life outlook the only pro-life outlook.

 

[martha]

Well, when people talk about the "right to life" for a fetus, they mean the right for the opportunity of the fetus to be born and have a chance.

And why does that "right" mean more than the woman's right to not be pregnant?

And almost everyone agrees that abortions should be allowed when dealing with pregnant women who cannot give birth for medical reasons.

NO THEY DON'T. Jesus, do some research before you post. And many of the people who do say this are saying it to gain political points. They have no real plan to administer such a system.

So, the right to life is the right for a chance to live, which has already been granted to the woman by being born.

And may be taken away from her. Do I need to post pictures of the dead women from illegal abortions?

To give the fetus a chance to be born, I imagine.

And never mind the risk to the health of the mother, even if it is only mental health. she'll get over it. Right? Because a fetus should have the "right" to be born no matter what.

Your third statement there is an incorrect generalization, because almost everyone agrees about the medical issues.

See above.

Again, to your fourth statement, I think if you truly believe that a fetus is living, you wouldn't see it as a gender issue. Not saying that it isn't a gender issue, but some people see it differently.

And why do these "some people" get to make the laws? Even if these "some people" cannot ever ever become pregnant?

And for the right reasons, I imagine, again, it's about the fetus and not you.

Why does a fetus get more consideration than me, a living breathing woman?

Not everything I'm saying I agree with,

Thank God.

Again, you really need to do some research on this.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It's not accurate to call a fetus anything else but a living being, either, even in the first trimester. It is living, but it isn't living on its own. To my knowledge, any being is either dead or alive. Only because it does need the mother to be kept alive, its a living being. Even a sperm is technically alive.

It's been mentioned in other threads before, but so far not really deeply discussed as far as I recall the discussions: Abortions in the first trimester perfectly legal, and after that only if medically necessary. And a focus on education on how to prevent pregnance in the first place, not on how to stay away from sins.

We shouldn't argue in a way that we perceive everyone on the other side of the topic as being a stereotypical South Dakotaan pro-lifer or where ever they come from pro-choicer, but try to take a more moderate view of the argument (otherwise we won't get anywhere, as they are not arguing rantionally).
For example, if you think of phillyfan's previous posts on this topic you will remember that he certainly isn't ""taking comfort in his maleness and youth" on this topic.

An abolition of abortion is about the worst you can do, and anyone who is seeing a woman as a vessel clearly has a very naive and shallow view of the whole topic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the majority of people is thinking like that, so we shouldn't make them the rule, just as we shouldn't paint every pro-lifer as someone who cheerfully welcomes every abortion or is taking pleasure in high abortion rates. Those are by far the exception.

It's right, in the case of abortion no one should tell another person what she has to do with her body, especially if it is in danger. But I also think that during pregnancy the fetus develops to a point where you can't simply say "Well, it's not a living, breathing being, yet.", hence I'm in favor of how abortion law has developed in Europe.

Ron Paul argues that in his experience there has never been a case where an abortion was medically necessary. However, obviously those cases exist as there are a few late-term abortions in Europe each year, either because the baby was diagnosed severely disabled or because of a risk for the mother.

 

[martha]

Ron Paul argues that in his experience there has never been a case where an abortion was medically necessary.

Then he, unlike you, is full of shit.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, I was puzzled when I read that as well.

 

[martha]

Abortions in the first trimester perfectly legal,/B]

Yes. For now. There are many who want to change this. For instance, most, if not all the Republican candidates for president.

We shouldn't argue in a way that we perceive everyone on the other side of the topic as being a stereotypical South Dakotaan pro-lifer or where ever they come from pro-choicer

You're absolutely right.

An abolition of abortion is about the worst you can do

We know this to be true. Many Americans disagree.

It's right, in the case of abortion no one should tell another person what she has to do with her body, especially if it is in danger. But I also think that during pregnancy the fetus develops to a point where you can't simply say "Well, it's not a living, breathing being, yet.",

I agree 100%.

The reason I refer to gender and youth: Many men, especially young men with limited experience, have such a rosy view of the abortion issue. They think that because they don't think it should be legislated that no one else does. They don't understand that this has been going on for decades, and it didn't start with Roe v. Wade. That don't understand that women's access to birth control was limited and still is; that many of these same "pro-life" people really do want to limit access to birth control. They don't feel it because they will never ever have to allow a stranger access to their health records. They just don't get it, yet they're the loudest here in FYM about how we should "see the other side."

 

[Infinity]

Be against it all you want. But please don't tell the women who need the procedure that somehow your opinions on their medical decisions matter more.

If they NEED the procedure for health reasons, then they should get it. I know you are going to ask me, who gets to decide these health reasons. It should be up to the doctor and the patient. But besides that, I don't think partial birth abortion should be allowed for any other reason besides a medical reason.

 

[Infinity]

It's a limited value, then. If you feel you have a right to determine what happens to the woman carrying the fetus just because she's now a vessel, then you value the fetus more than the living, breathing woman. Why do you get to make those decisions for a stranger? Why does she have to prove to you, or your representative (a doctor, a panel of strangers appointed by lawmakers) that the pregnancy will not be in her best interests? Why is it anybody's business but hers? Why is it your business?

Okay then what about after a baby is born. What if there was a law that says for up to one week after the birth of the baby, the mother has the right to decide whether or not she wants to keep it or put it to sleep. Just because that isn't allowed does that mean that the baby is more valuable than the woman? No. So I think that partial birth abortion shouldn't be allowed at all (unless there is a health risk for the mother). But does that mean I think that the fetus is automatically more valuable than the woman? No. In fact, the woman is more valuable since her life comes first. If there is a threat to her health, then the fetus gets aborted. So who's life is more valuable?

 

[Infinity]

Then he, unlike you, is full of shit.

Back that up for me. Show me proof of a case that Ron Paul has seen in which he saw an abortion that WAS medically necessary.

 

[Dreadsox]

It's a limited value, then. If you feel you have a right to determine what happens to the woman carrying the fetus just because she's now a vessel, then you value the fetus more than the living, breathing woman. Why do you get to make those decisions for a stranger? Why does she have to prove to you, or your representative (a doctor, a panel of strangers appointed by lawmakers) that the pregnancy will not be in her best interests? Why is it anybody's business but hers? Why is it your business?

Are your questions an answer to mine.

I am simply stating that I believe that the fetus has a right to life unless the mothers life is in danger. Period.

That does not place the mother's life above the fetus.

If I understand you, the woman should always be able to destroy the fetus, no matter what. I guess ultimately that does place the woman above the fetus, which is fine.

I do not agree with this, nor does it make me value a fetus above a mother.

Ultimately I find your position more distrespectful of life. newborn baby cannot survive on its own either. Maybe placing the burden of providing for the newborn life is too much. They should be terminated too if the mother feels it too burdonsome.

 

[anitram]

My greatest opposition to the pro-life movement as a whole is that they tend to behave as if life begins at conception and ends at birth. That is when these babies become a welfare problem, when we'll cut social programs and force single mothers to work 3 jobs because that's "uniquely American" (per President Bush), when we'll underfund inner city schools where most of these kids will inevitably end up, and then when they're teenagers we'll tell them all about abstinence while our pharmacists refuse to give out birth control and while the Catholic church crows about condoms.

There is a hell of a lot more concern about fetuses, zygotes and stem cells on a plastic plate than kids of mothers whose choice they're looking to take away.