Abortion In The Usa

[elizabeth09]

Why?

Edited July 10, 2010 by elizabeth09

[Winchester]

Is that how the English spell it?

[Gregorius]

abortion=murder of the innocent.

[Jesus_lol]

you are giving mixed messages. first the "abourtion" indicated that it was about canada, and then the "in the USA" threw me for a loop.







also this question is pretty straight forward. predicting the forthcoming answers is scarcely more difficult than it would be if you were asking a room full of canadians if they kinda like hockey.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[thessalonian]

Hmmm. Lets see. Killing is taking place. Should we stand by and watch or stop it?

[Winchester]

Murder is taking place, actually.

[Nihil Obstat]

I can't answer, since the "we" doesn't apply to me.

You all know my opinion though.

[SaintOfVirtue]

Is this a rhetorical question?

A person is a person no matter how small.

This is not entirely killing.

This is not entirely murder.

This is pure GENOCIDE!

Does that answer the question?

[dairygirl4u2c]

id argue for the most part, rare excepios, abortion should be illegal.
i could argue the nay position pretty well though.

main idea. we dont know if it's a person early on, at least. there's many consideratiosn to take into account, such as personal liberty of the mother, and all the stuff prochoice people usually say, 'dont want a kid in todays world etc', taht sounds so loony to prolife people when taken out of context (and usually prochoice people dont know what they're implying, or do know they advocate murder). if no one knows if it's a person early on, who is everyone or society to decide? per even conservative libertarian ideals, the lowest person should generally decide in heirarchy, no government. and it gives respect- if no one knows, why not defer to the person affected by it the most? even to me who would pretty much ban abortion, there is a sense of offense, it's like... did the cavemen go run over to the other caves, and give ultimatums about whether cavewoman A was pregnant or not, before an abortion? sure, the cavement probably had rules that affected other cavement and such, but at the most basic society, privacy is an issue. and even today, privacy is an issue, and that's one of the considerations youd take into account too. that's the main argument the supreme court used also, incidentally. (i agree with the use of 'privacy' per the constitution as a 'fundamental right', i just dont think it should apply to abortions, as much)
course the prolife side says to 'defer to life', too much at risk, evne if we grant it might be uncertain, personahood

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='10 July 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1278769360' post='2140715']
i could argue the nay position pretty well though.
[/quote]
You could? So this poo you continually post is intentional?

[dairygirl4u2c]

often i play the devils adovcate, so yes that's intentional.
the rest of the poo is just my own ideas. :-D

[Lil Red]

[quote name='elizabeth09' date='09 July 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1278724388' post='2140250']
Why?
[/quote]
because he or she is a human baby - not a product of conception, not just a pregnancy, not a fetus.... every child is a wanted child, if not by the parent/s /grandparents/siblings/relatives....then by God Himself. to kill off the most innocent of our society is an example that we are failing as a society.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='10 July 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1278792791' post='2140877']
often i play the devils adovcate, so yes that's intentional.
the rest of the poo is just my own ideas. :-D
[/quote]
and total poo it is.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='10 July 2010 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1278769360' post='2140715']
id argue for the most part, rare excepios, abortion should be illegal.
i could argue the nay position pretty well though.

main idea. we dont know if it's a person early on, at least. there's many consideratiosn to take into account, such as personal liberty of the mother, and all the stuff prochoice people usually say, 'dont want a kid in todays world etc', taht sounds so loony to prolife people when taken out of context (and usually prochoice people dont know what they're implying, or do know they advocate murder). if no one knows if it's a person early on, who is everyone or society to decide? per even conservative libertarian ideals, the lowest person should generally decide in heirarchy, no government. and it gives respect- if no one knows, why not defer to the person affected by it the most? even to me who would pretty much ban abortion, there is a sense of offense, it's like... did the cavemen go run over to the other caves, and give ultimatums about whether cavewoman A was pregnant or not, before an abortion? sure, the cavement probably had rules that affected other cavement and such, but at the most basic society, privacy is an issue. and even today, privacy is an issue, and that's one of the considerations youd take into account too. that's the main argument the supreme court used also, incidentally. (i agree with the use of 'privacy' per the constitution as a 'fundamental right', i just dont think it should apply to abortions, as much)
course the prolife side says to 'defer to life', too much at risk, evne if we grant it might be uncertain, personahood
[/quote]
excuse me if i disagree that an unborn person is 'property' to be disposed of, sold or bought as 'adults' wished. you do spew a lot of poo, don't you?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='10 July 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1278792791' post='2140877']
often i play the devils adovcate, so yes that's intentional.
the rest of the poo is just my own ideas. :-D
[/quote]
Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles. -Chesterton