Political Crossfire Forums

[flushman]

What the title says. Why do you care if someone gets an abortion???? If you're religous and believe that abortion is a sin and you will go to hell why not let god deal with the women that get them? To me its not that big of a deal, if the woman is single and the father is not involved then its her choice if the father is involved then it should be both of thier choices. But what affect does it have on you if a person in maine gets one???? I dont understand all the arguments over this topic it should be NO ones business what someone chooses to do. Problem with america is everyone that lives here wants to be up in everyone else's issues. Just mind yours and the country would work a ton better.

[galba]

flushman wrote: What the title says. Why do you care if someone gets an abortion???? If you're religous and believe that abortion is a sin and you will go to hell why not let god deal with the women that get them? To me its not that big of a deal, if the woman is single and the father is not involved then its her choice if the father is involved then it should be both of thier choices. But what affect does it have on you if a person in maine gets one???? I dont understand all the arguments over this topic it should be NO ones business what someone chooses to do. Problem with america is everyone that lives here wants to be up in everyone else's issues. Just mind yours and the country would work a ton better.

I don't care what you do, even though I may not agree with it myself. However, if a women has an abortion, she KILLS a child. That I mind.

[The Grandmaster]

galba wrote: flushman wrote: What the title says. Why do you care if someone gets an abortion???? If you're religous and believe that abortion is a sin and you will go to hell why not let god deal with the women that get them? To me its not that big of a deal, if the woman is single and the father is not involved then its her choice if the father is involved then it should be both of thier choices. But what affect does it have on you if a person in maine gets one???? I dont understand all the arguments over this topic it should be NO ones business what someone chooses to do. Problem with america is everyone that lives here wants to be up in everyone else's issues. Just mind yours and the country would work a ton better.

I don't care what you do, even though I may not agree with it myself. However, if a women has an abortion, she KILLS a child. That I mind.

No she doesn't.

[steen]

galba wrote: I don't care what you do, even though I may not agree with it myself. However, if a women has an abortion, she KILLS a child. That I mind. Utter nonsense, there is no child until birth.

[flushman]

steen wrote: galba wrote: I don't care what you do, even though I may not agree with it myself. However, if a women has an abortion, she KILLS a child. That I mind. Utter nonsense, there is no child until birth.

I feel the same way! there is no child until the woman gives birth!

[galba]

flushman wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: I don't care what you do, even though I may not agree with it myself. However, if a women has an abortion, she KILLS a child. That I mind. Utter nonsense, there is no child until birth.

I feel the same way! there is no child until the woman gives birth!

I answered your question, though.

[steen]

galba wrote: I answered your question, though. You can continue spewing your deceptive, pro-life, revisionist linmguistic hyperbole. But as "child" is a developmental stage starting AT birth and ending at adolescence, your answer still is nonsense. We would rather have a meaningful quality answer from you, thank you.

[Selfish_Meme]

flushman wrote: What the title says. Why do you care if someone gets an abortion???? If you're religous and believe that abortion is a sin and you will go to hell why not let god deal with the women that get them? To me its not that big of a deal, if the woman is single and the father is not involved then its her choice if the father is involved then it should be both of thier choices. But what affect does it have on you if a person in maine gets one???? I dont understand all the arguments over this topic it should be NO ones business what someone chooses to do. Problem with america is everyone that lives here wants to be up in everyone else's issues. Just mind yours and the country would work a ton better.
It is not my business whether someone else has an abortion or not.

In some sense I have an interest in the laws of the country being adhered to though. That is self-interest on my part knowing what to expect in my daily life. Also my opnion (vote) counts towards the laws we do have, so giving me the opportunity to make life better for me. So it is of interest to me whether someone can legally have an abortion.

[XPhile2868]

I don't care if a woman has an abortion or not, as it is her body and her choice.

[Black_Lynx]

Selfish_meme: So Democracy to you is the idea you can control what someone you don't know does because you don't like it? That's sick, you give Democracy a bad name. In this particular case your life wouldn't have changed one bit.

------
This is the biggest arguement for the pro-choice campaign "if you don't like it don't do it". This is partly why I've dedicated my life to building my cultural movement (The Satanic Revolution) to shake of the shackles of other people's beliefs. For centries have Religionists imposed their holy laws on people who do not share their outlook - Their reign is ending.

[Selfish_Meme]

Black_Lynx wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: In some sense I have an interest in the laws of the country being adhered to though. That is self-interest on my part knowing what to expect in my daily life. Also my opnion (vote) counts towards the laws we do have, so giving me the opportunity to make life better for me. So it is of interest to me whether someone can legally have an abortion.
So Democracy to you is the idea you can control what someone you don't know does because you don't like it? That's sick, you give Democracy a bad name. In this particular case your life wouldn't have changed one bit.
Democracy to me is rule by the people. (www.dictionary.com) The people decide on the rules they wish to live by. When I vote I express my opinion on the rules I wish to live by. If I wish to have the choice to abort available to people then that is the way I vote. I don't control anyone elses vote, they are free to vote however they wish. Theres nothing 'sick' about it. When you live in a society you live by the rules of that society, if you don't like a rule you vote in the way that you wish. Is that not how Democracy works. Or do you advocate that we only vote the way you want us to vote, oh that's right it wouldn't be a democracy then would it.

[ewdesign]

steen wrote: galba wrote: I don't care what you do, even though I may not agree with it myself. However, if a women has an abortion, she KILLS a child. That I mind. Utter nonsense, there is no child until birth.

I'm not completely for or against abortion. I believe every situation is different.

There is a problem with the statement "there is no child until birth." though. If this is true, then why is killing a pregnant woman punishable by the death penalty in some states, where killing a woman who is not? The fetus may not be totally developed until shortly before birth, but every day of it's life after conception it developes more, and more brain functionality.

Personally I think we should worry more about the hungry, un-educated, and violent children who are already here more, but I also believe woman should be more responsible, and put more thought into getting pregnant to begin with. Really, if you don't want to get pregnant you don't have to! What a magical concept.

[Selfish_Meme]

ewdesign wrote: There is a problem with the statement "there is no child until birth." though. If this is true, then why is killing a pregnant woman punishable by the death penalty in some states, where killing a woman who is not? The fetus may not be totally developed until shortly before birth, but every day of it's life after conception it developes more, and more brain functionality.
That law has nothing to do with the definition of a child though, which is the stage of development from birth to adolescence. I can't find anything about the law you quote either, have you got a link?

ewdesign wrote: Personally I think we should worry more about the hungry, un-educated, and violent children who are already here more, but I also believe woman should be more responsible, and put more thought into getting pregnant to begin with. Really, if you don't want to get pregnant you don't have to! What a magical concept.
i agree, assuming of course the woman didn't put any thought into it. Unless you assume that anyone who does get pregnant accidentally hasn't put any thought into it? or in other words don't use contraception abstain?

[Todd D.]

Quote: That law has nothing to do with the definition of a child though, which is the stage of development from birth to adolescence. I can't find anything about the law you quote either, have you got a link?
At least in California it's what is known as "Lacey and Connor's Law", named after Lacey and Connor Peterson. Scott Peterson was convicted of TWO counts of murder: Lacey as well as their unborn son Connor.

Whether or not they are a "child" is a matter of semantics. The argument on the Pro-Life side is that they are a living being. Despite what the Pro-Choice side wants to say, that can not be refuted simply by saying "utter nonsense" and ridicule. That entity has separate DNA, separate growth patterns, and in later stages seperate organs and a seperate brain. You can make a VERY convincing argument that it IS a seperate living entity. Therefore if it is a seperate living entity, then it is not simply a matter of "butting in to someone else's business". If that were true, then we shouldn't make laws against any sort of aggressive force. After all, who are we to stop the mugger from robbing someone?

[Selfish_Meme]

Todd D. wrote: At least in California it's what is known as "Lacey and Connor's Law", named after Lacey and Connor Peterson. Scott Peterson was convicted of TWO counts of murder: Lacey as well as their unborn son Connor.

Whether or not they are a "child" is a matter of semantics. The argument on the Pro-Life side is that they are a living being. Despite what the Pro-Choice side wants to say, that can not be refuted simply by saying "utter nonsense" and ridicule. That entity has separate DNA, separate growth patterns, and in later stages seperate organs and a seperate brain. You can make a VERY convincing argument that it IS a seperate living entity. Therefore if it is a seperate living entity, then it is not simply a matter of "butting in to someone else's business". If that were true, then we shouldn't make laws against any sort of aggressive force. After all, who are we to stop the mugger from robbing someone?
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142856#1142856 I think this is the one you are talking about in another post. Apparently it was second degree murder and the conviction was based on the rights of the woman to choose, rather than the rights of the fetus killed? have not researched it yet so don't want to say definately.

The term child, you are right has many definitions. Which means it is useless for deciding the rights of one. I agree as well that we can call an embryo/fetus a living being. However I think you will find the definition of murder is not dependant on any of those definitions.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/murder?view=uk

[flushman]

we decide laws??? What freakin planet are you on??? You may be able to vote on a local propositions but you do not vote on laws. I don't remember bush asking me to vote for that dumb ass patriot act do you?? I don't remember voting on local speeding laws, drinking laws, tax laws an a whole assortment of laws that have been passed by CONGRESS! I guess you can say well I vote for my congressman and thats how I decide but does your congressman ask your opinion on a law before he/she votes either way??? USA in the begining was a true democracy now its just a shi**y run democracy with everyone trying to FORCE thier beliefs on others.

[Selfish_Meme]

flushman wrote: we decide laws??? What freakin planet are you on??? You may be able to vote on a local propositions but you do not vote on laws. I don't remember bush asking me to vote for that dumb ass patriot act do you?? I don't remember voting on local speeding laws, drinking laws, tax laws an a whole assortment of laws that have been passed by CONGRESS! I guess you can say well I vote for my congressman and thats how I decide but does your congressman ask your opinion on a law before he/she votes either way??? USA in the begining was a true democracy now its just a shi**y run democracy with everyone trying to FORCE thier beliefs on others.
hehe...I was quoting what a true democracy was, no, we don't live in true democracies. We live in representative democracies. Where the people we vote for should be governed by what we want, but sadly are often more goverened by what they want. The USA was never a 'true' democracy, it was always representational.

[Todd D.]

flushman wrote: we decide laws??? What freakin planet are you on??? You may be able to vote on a local propositions but you do not vote on laws. I don't remember bush asking me to vote for that dumb ass patriot act do you?? I don't remember voting on local speeding laws, drinking laws, tax laws an a whole assortment of laws that have been passed by CONGRESS! I guess you can say well I vote for my congressman and thats how I decide but does your congressman ask your opinion on a law before he/she votes either way??? USA in the begining was a true democracy now its just a shi**y run democracy with everyone trying to FORCE thier beliefs on others.
Can I buy pot from you? The US was never a "true democracy", nor was it ever supposed to be. In fact, it wasn't until the 20th century that we even voted for Senators! There's a reason for that, too. True democracy leads to a tyranny of the majority. Majority rule over minority rights is not justice, it's mob rule. That's the entire reason that we have a legislative branch and a judicial branch, to act as checks on each other's power.

We are a Democratic Republic. Always have been. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Selfish_Meme]

Todd D. wrote: There's a reason for that, too. True democracy leads to a tyranny of the majority. Majority rule over minority rights is not justice, it's mob rule. That's the entire reason that we have a legislative branch and a judicial branch, to act as checks on each other's power.

We are a Democratic Republic. Always have been. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't think there has ever been an actual 'Tyranny of the Majority' for that claim to be true. I could be wrong though. Wikipedia says:

Quote: Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Tyranny_of_the_majority

[Black_Lynx]

Hold on Todd. If Democracy is mob rule than dictatorship could hardly be worse, right? lol

ewdesign: Are you actually assuming that ALL birthcontrol is 100% success and that rape doesn't happen, or that maybe it was some other horrible chain of events.