Reading This Now
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
Why stop there?
espeir wrote:
Why stop there?
Some don't. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there.
I find it absolutely appalling that you would trivialize the issue to this extent. The nature of the "something" being removed is relevant to the discussion, as are the rights that "something" may or may not have. To brush that aside as if one were talking of removing a wart is callous in the extreme. And a late term abortion is very much about killing a child who might otherwise survive...
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal.
That is precisely the argument. Many people do question that "right" when the "something" is an unborn child. I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
I'm not an absolutist either, and I agree with you. There should be limits on how much time the woman is granted the right to an abortion, especially if there's a great chance the fetus can survive outside the woman's body. Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
You're both completely wrong. We're talking about the law...Not your personally desires to inflict your skewed sense of morality on the public. There is no text in the constitution that prohibits a state from passing a law that restricts abortion. If abortion were made illegal via the legislative process that's one thing, but the tactics were quite teh opposite. Abortion was inflicted on an unwilling public. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not fanatic minorities who make up laws on a whim.
Apparently, if the majority of the US believed that abortion is illegal, it would have been an open and shut case, say, like going to war in Iraq. Despite all the minority protests, the elected representatives allowed it by a big margin. All you need is to present a bill wherever it needs to be presented, get it passed. But, AFAIK, Mr. Bush had a hard time passing the partial death abortion bill itself. Please accept that public opinion is quite divided, and the division is more cloase to 50% -- although it is impossible for me to know which side is leading. Anyway, an anti-abortion bill would have found much more favour, if the plight of rape victims and teenage pregnancies were dealt with more pragmatically. Instead, the living already born women are treated like shit, and they don't get to make a decision that a Federal court in US has allowed. Now you talk about the law -- the law is that most cases of abortion are legal. The extreme right has reacted to this violently at times by bombing abortion clinics etc. All these are not helping the cause. You make the opponents to an outright ban on abortion (without any consideration to whether there is a health risk for the mother, whether she was raped etc.) look like people who shoot and kill children during their spare time for fun. I don't enjoy supporting abortion. I don't enjoy killing babies either. But, if a woman gets raped, she should have the right to abort the child, if she wishes to. She should not have to live with the nightmare for a second more than needed. If a woman has sex, she should have the right to use a "morning after pill" to prevent an unwanted child from entering the world. Adoption as a solution has not worked either -- because the orphanages are still full of babies and grown kids with no one to adopt them . . . and many of them live with a feeling of unwantedness. If a democracy (80% Hindus) in India decide to kill all Christians in India, would that be acceptable to you? There are some things that are not negotiable, despite the support it has. The constitution of most countries have provisions that certain rights cannot be impeded upon; and allows the judicial system to strike down those laws, if passed by the legislative assemblies. I guess, the US would have laws stating individual freedoms including speech, religion etc. being not negotiable.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
I'm not an absolutist either, and I agree with you. There should be limits on how much time the woman is granted the right to an abortion, especially if there's a great chance the fetus can survive outside the woman's body. Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life.
Wait a few months and it will be at just such a stage. Why is the ability to have an abortion so important? Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant. I mean this stuff is known by every middle school kid. I don't drive really fast through crowded city streets (even though it might be fun) because it might kill somebody.
-
Apparently, if the majority of the US believed that abortion is illegal, it would have been an open and shut case, say, like going to war in Iraq. Despite all the minority protests, the elected representatives allowed it by a big margin. All you need is to present a bill wherever it needs to be presented, get it passed. But, AFAIK, Mr. Bush had a hard time passing the partial death abortion bill itself. Please accept that public opinion is quite divided, and the division is more cloase to 50% -- although it is impossible for me to know which side is leading. Anyway, an anti-abortion bill would have found much more favour, if the plight of rape victims and teenage pregnancies were dealt with more pragmatically. Instead, the living already born women are treated like shit, and they don't get to make a decision that a Federal court in US has allowed. Now you talk about the law -- the law is that most cases of abortion are legal. The extreme right has reacted to this violently at times by bombing abortion clinics etc. All these are not helping the cause. You make the opponents to an outright ban on abortion (without any consideration to whether there is a health risk for the mother, whether she was raped etc.) look like people who shoot and kill children during their spare time for fun. I don't enjoy supporting abortion. I don't enjoy killing babies either. But, if a woman gets raped, she should have the right to abort the child, if she wishes to. She should not have to live with the nightmare for a second more than needed. If a woman has sex, she should have the right to use a "morning after pill" to prevent an unwanted child from entering the world. Adoption as a solution has not worked either -- because the orphanages are still full of babies and grown kids with no one to adopt them . . . and many of them live with a feeling of unwantedness. If a democracy (80% Hindus) in India decide to kill all Christians in India, would that be acceptable to you? There are some things that are not negotiable, despite the support it has. The constitution of most countries have provisions that certain rights cannot be impeded upon; and allows the judicial system to strike down those laws, if passed by the legislative assemblies. I guess, the US would have laws stating individual freedoms including speech, religion etc. being not negotiable.
Thomas George wrote:
Apparently, if the majority of the US believed that abortion is illegal, it would have been an open and shut case, say, like going to war in Iraq. Despite all the minority protests, the elected representatives allowed it by a big margin. All you need is to present a bill wherever it needs to be presented, get it passed. But, AFAIK, Mr. Bush had a hard time passing the partial death abortion bill itself. Please accept that public opinion is quite divided, and the division is more cloase to 50% -- although it is impossible for me to know which side is leading. Anyway, an anti-abortion bill would have found much more favour, if the plight of rape victims and teenage pregnancies were dealt with more pragmatically. Instead, the living already born women are treated like sh*t, and they don't get to make a decision that a Federal court in US has allowed. Now you talk about the law -- the law is that most cases of abortion are legal.
Actually...It's not that simple. The courts override bills that are passed. Those, in turn, can be overridden by the people only with 2/3 support by amending the constitution. The nation was appalled by the court overturning abortion laws, but at the same time did not want to sully our sacred document with text about abortions. Instead, the public decided to revise the courts. Since supreme court appointees are reluctant to overturn previous rulings (though they have in the past) and they have a lifetime appointment, those laws remained on the books. Since then there has been a concerted propaganda effort to desensitize people to abortion. Now there is not even enough public support for an amendment.
Thomas George wrote:
The extreme right has reacted to this violently at times by bombing abortion clinics etc. All these are not helping the cause. You make the opponents to an outright ban on abortion (without any consideration to whether there is a health risk for the mother, whether she was raped etc.) look like people who shoot and kill children during their spare time for fun.
Actually one person bombed an abortion clinic and now he's on death row (put there by conservatives). This is in stark contrast to the 50 million+ babies (and counting) slaughtered by the fanatical left which inflicted its laws on an unwilling public.
Thomas George wrote:
I don't enjoy supporting abortion. I don't enjoy killin
-
Thomas George wrote:
But, when you are in an elected position and catering to a multi-religious community, you should not use that privilege to spread a religious message -- and this restriction applies ONLY when you are doing your job.
And this is where things get ugly, as one person's "spreading a message" is another's "being honest and upfront about my beliefs". But don't worry - i doubt we'll get either an honest or a godly politician any time soon.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
I don't worry much about these things. When people stick their heels in on a position, then I get pissed off a little. . . . just because they are not open to new ideas. I supported the position only from experience in India. Now, there has to be a debate about what benefits the society derives, when the president is preaching his religious message from official events. If one person should sacrifice a little freedom for the well-being of the country, it should be the President. But, the public opinion in India, unlike the US, is that no religious references be made from a position of power. It is very important because people are less educated in many pockets, and a stray remark can hurt someone's feelings and result in serious violence. It happened a few times. What happens if a violence breaks out between two communities, and the governor/president has been vociferously supporting one community prior to this incident. I believe that he will be seen as one from the other side, and will not be able to engage the parties involved in a constructive dialogue. . . .
-
Excellent! The sequel (can't remember the name -- have it at home) is just as good! ---sig---
Silence is the voice of complicity Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- Vincent Reynolds Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay PS. If you don't understand my sarcasm -- go to hell! -
Thomas George wrote:
Apparently, if the majority of the US believed that abortion is illegal, it would have been an open and shut case, say, like going to war in Iraq. Despite all the minority protests, the elected representatives allowed it by a big margin. All you need is to present a bill wherever it needs to be presented, get it passed. But, AFAIK, Mr. Bush had a hard time passing the partial death abortion bill itself. Please accept that public opinion is quite divided, and the division is more cloase to 50% -- although it is impossible for me to know which side is leading. Anyway, an anti-abortion bill would have found much more favour, if the plight of rape victims and teenage pregnancies were dealt with more pragmatically. Instead, the living already born women are treated like sh*t, and they don't get to make a decision that a Federal court in US has allowed. Now you talk about the law -- the law is that most cases of abortion are legal.
Actually...It's not that simple. The courts override bills that are passed. Those, in turn, can be overridden by the people only with 2/3 support by amending the constitution. The nation was appalled by the court overturning abortion laws, but at the same time did not want to sully our sacred document with text about abortions. Instead, the public decided to revise the courts. Since supreme court appointees are reluctant to overturn previous rulings (though they have in the past) and they have a lifetime appointment, those laws remained on the books. Since then there has been a concerted propaganda effort to desensitize people to abortion. Now there is not even enough public support for an amendment.
Thomas George wrote:
The extreme right has reacted to this violently at times by bombing abortion clinics etc. All these are not helping the cause. You make the opponents to an outright ban on abortion (without any consideration to whether there is a health risk for the mother, whether she was raped etc.) look like people who shoot and kill children during their spare time for fun.
Actually one person bombed an abortion clinic and now he's on death row (put there by conservatives). This is in stark contrast to the 50 million+ babies (and counting) slaughtered by the fanatical left which inflicted its laws on an unwilling public.
Thomas George wrote:
I don't enjoy supporting abortion. I don't enjoy killin
How do you debate? Brand everyone names, and not discuss the actual issues? You keep saying that whatever I say is an argument of the left, and later gives no valid reason why despite all the support, the political system in your country cannot deliver what the people want. You keep telling me that the judicial system in your country is fucked up, and no one wants to fix it -- although everyone wants it fixed. Apparently, those are some weak or indifferent people that you guys vote for! If the courts override bills that are passed, there is something unconstitutional about it, if none of the politicians are willing to take it up. As I understand, most politicians do not see the abortion issue as more important than partisan politics. It is amazing that when such a large majority in your country supports the "pro life" case (as you suggest), you cannot get enough people in the legislature to amend the constitution to give unborn babies the same rights as a born human being. I think that the concerted propoganda argument is silly. People either support something or they don't. I did not see as widespread a support for anti-abortion when I was in US. In India, I see a higher support for the cause -- aithough the government has let the medical ethics committee decide on a code of conduct for doctors, when they perform abortion. i.e., they are allowed to perform abortion only in certain situations. Now, you talk about taking lives. How about death row? How about military deaths? Did the society not decide that these loss of lives are acceptable? The society does not have any problems in taking life, when it is for the collective good. You are not making your position clear on related issues. These are all related to the right to live. 1. Embryonic stem cell research. 2. The morning after pill 3. Abortion for rape victims 4. Abortion for pregnant women who might not survive without an abortion. 5. How long should a person be kept on life support systems, after he has shown no improvement or response to medication? 6. Death penalty 7. War I think you focus on the unborn baby too much, and at the same time, do not see the plight of living people.
espeir wrote:
Striking down abortion by constitutional means is the legal equivalent of a judge saying that the constitution prohibits states from making murder illegal.
That is your opinion. Not all your elected representatives, and by inference, your country men agree.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life.
Wait a few months and it will be at just such a stage. Why is the ability to have an abortion so important? Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant. I mean this stuff is known by every middle school kid. I don't drive really fast through crowded city streets (even though it might be fun) because it might kill somebody.
espeir wrote:
Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant.
There it is. :sigh: You really held that in for a long time didn't you. Feel better now? But then who cares. :zzz: Question: You would like to seriously effect this issue… so how many orphaned kids do you spend your time working with? You know become a "Positive" force in there life so they might not grow up to duplicate the problem. led mike
-
Excellent! The sequel (can't remember the name -- have it at home) is just as good! ---sig---
Silence is the voice of complicity Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- Vincent Reynolds Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay PS. If you don't understand my sarcasm -- go to hell!ahz wrote:
The sequel (can't remember the name
The Gripping Hand
-
How do you debate? Brand everyone names, and not discuss the actual issues? You keep saying that whatever I say is an argument of the left, and later gives no valid reason why despite all the support, the political system in your country cannot deliver what the people want. You keep telling me that the judicial system in your country is fucked up, and no one wants to fix it -- although everyone wants it fixed. Apparently, those are some weak or indifferent people that you guys vote for! If the courts override bills that are passed, there is something unconstitutional about it, if none of the politicians are willing to take it up. As I understand, most politicians do not see the abortion issue as more important than partisan politics. It is amazing that when such a large majority in your country supports the "pro life" case (as you suggest), you cannot get enough people in the legislature to amend the constitution to give unborn babies the same rights as a born human being. I think that the concerted propoganda argument is silly. People either support something or they don't. I did not see as widespread a support for anti-abortion when I was in US. In India, I see a higher support for the cause -- aithough the government has let the medical ethics committee decide on a code of conduct for doctors, when they perform abortion. i.e., they are allowed to perform abortion only in certain situations. Now, you talk about taking lives. How about death row? How about military deaths? Did the society not decide that these loss of lives are acceptable? The society does not have any problems in taking life, when it is for the collective good. You are not making your position clear on related issues. These are all related to the right to live. 1. Embryonic stem cell research. 2. The morning after pill 3. Abortion for rape victims 4. Abortion for pregnant women who might not survive without an abortion. 5. How long should a person be kept on life support systems, after he has shown no improvement or response to medication? 6. Death penalty 7. War I think you focus on the unborn baby too much, and at the same time, do not see the plight of living people.
espeir wrote:
Striking down abortion by constitutional means is the legal equivalent of a judge saying that the constitution prohibits states from making murder illegal.
That is your opinion. Not all your elected representatives, and by inference, your country men agree.
Thomas George wrote:
How do you debate? Brand everyone names, and not discuss the actual issues? You keep saying that whatever I say is an argument of the left, and later gives no valid reason why despite all the support, the political system in your country cannot deliver what the people want. You keep telling me that the judicial system in your country is fucked up, and no one wants to fix it -- although everyone wants it fixed. Apparently, those are some weak or indifferent people that you guys vote for!
I didn't call you any names. Actually for the first time in many years, the judicial system has been populated with constitional literalists (i.e. judges who actually interpret the law instead of making it up...go figure), so we're expecting change. It was a long journey as we conservatives had to fight to gain control of both branches of government since liberals will veto any qualified judge if that judge is not also liberal.
Thomas George wrote:
If the courts override bills that are passed, there is something unconstitutional about it, if none of the politicians are willing to take it up. As I understand, most politicians do not see the abortion issue as more important than partisan politics.
I don't think you're understanding what I said. Judges do not have to base their decision on any literal text. We had a string of judges that decided their personal opinion was more important than the law. It does not mean there is anything contrary to the constitution in the law. In fact I challenge you and anybody here to point out the text of our constitution that restricts states from passing anti-abortion laws.
Thomas George wrote:
It is amazing that when such a large majority in your country supports the "pro life" case (as you suggest), you cannot get enough people in the legislature to amend the constitution to give unborn babies the same rights as a born human being. I think that the concerted propoganda argument is silly. People either support something or they don't. I did not see as widespread a support for anti-abortion when I was in US. In India, I see a higher support for the cause -- aithough the government has let the medical ethics committee decide on a code of conduct for doctors, when they perform abortion. i.e., they are allowed to perform abortion only in certain situations.
Actually now it's split down the middle
-
espeir wrote:
Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant.
There it is. :sigh: You really held that in for a long time didn't you. Feel better now? But then who cares. :zzz: Question: You would like to seriously effect this issue… so how many orphaned kids do you spend your time working with? You know become a "Positive" force in there life so they might not grow up to duplicate the problem. led mike
Held what in? That's the crux of the issue. Women want to be able to sleep around without any responsibility for their actions, right? Or am I missing something here? Remember that less than 1% of all abortions are done because of rape or endangerment of the mother.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
Have you read this?
Yup. And the sequel Gripping Hand, which was OK. Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life.
Wait a few months and it will be at just such a stage. Why is the ability to have an abortion so important? Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant. I mean this stuff is known by every middle school kid. I don't drive really fast through crowded city streets (even though it might be fun) because it might kill somebody.
espeir wrote:
Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant.
Amazing. So you're implying that women become pregnant because they "whore" around?
espeir wrote:
I don't drive really fast through crowded city streets (even though it might be fun) because it might kill somebody.
And what if even by driving at the speed limit you still manage to kill somebody who gets in your way? Should we throw you in jail because you shouldn't have been driving to begin with?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
You're both completely wrong. We're talking about the law...Not your personally desires to inflict your skewed sense of morality on the public. There is no text in the constitution that prohibits a state from passing a law that restricts abortion. If abortion were made illegal via the legislative process that's one thing, but the tactics were quite teh opposite. Abortion was inflicted on an unwilling public. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not fanatic minorities who make up laws on a whim.
-
Held what in? That's the crux of the issue. Women want to be able to sleep around without any responsibility for their actions, right? Or am I missing something here? Remember that less than 1% of all abortions are done because of rape or endangerment of the mother.
-
espeir wrote:
Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant.
Amazing. So you're implying that women become pregnant because they "whore" around?
espeir wrote:
I don't drive really fast through crowded city streets (even though it might be fun) because it might kill somebody.
And what if even by driving at the speed limit you still manage to kill somebody who gets in your way? Should we throw you in jail because you shouldn't have been driving to begin with?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Amazing. So you're implying that women become pregnant because they "whore" around?
He didn't imply anything. He flatly stated it. Thus the righteousness of his argument since he is clearly the superior person to those that would seek an abortion. led mike
-
Thomas George wrote:
The right to abortion: Again, IMO, no law needed. It can also be argued that there is nothing in the US constitution preventing abortion. I know many people are against abortion; but, medically it may be needed for the survival of the mother. I would rather leave it to the mother and the medical professional rather than make a decision for all of them. Based on the collective morality and ethics in a society, this can be acceptable or not acceptable. Other issues of similar nature can be "mercy killing", status of patients on life support systems for years with no expected recovery etc. These are the kind of issues that I mean by change -- the majority in your country can change their mind. Again, life is sacred theory that causes the opposition to abortion. Nature gives us no indication that it values life much. Lots of lives are lost in natural calamities. We ourselves make choices -- freedom for a lot of lives of our fellow citizens by defending our countries, death penalty for a better behaved society, etc. Yet, the life is sacred theory has jeopardized scientic progress by stalling stem cell research by limiting use of embryonic stem cells. All these are not in the constitution either. I believe that when most constitutions were framed, they did not think about the rights of the unborn child -- now, there is an attempt to extend civil law to apply to the unborn child. If there can be no consensus, that will allow an amendment that will clarify the position, I believe the decision should be left to the individual.
As usual, most people (even pro-choicers) miss the point when it comes to abortion. It's not about killing anything (a child, a human being, a fetus, an embryo, a bunch of cells, or whatever you consider it). Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there. And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal. It sucks that most people focus on the life of the unborn child over the right all of us should continue having over what can go in or should be removed from our own bodies. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross -- modified at 12:39 Monday 1st May, 2006
Ahh hbut here lies a serious issue. Say the "father" of that fetus / child wants it. He has no say and she can abort it. Say the mom wants it. The father has no say but he will be expected to support that child. Equal protection clause anyone?
-
espeir wrote:
Held what in?
Why your desire to be affirmed a superior person of course. Now that was just a silly question. :laugh: What about my question? :| led mike
I still don't get it. What are you talking about? You think it's good for women to sleep around and simply "eliminate" the consquence? This applies to men too, since men require women to sleep around with.
-
Ahh hbut here lies a serious issue. Say the "father" of that fetus / child wants it. He has no say and she can abort it. Say the mom wants it. The father has no say but he will be expected to support that child. Equal protection clause anyone?
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote:
Ahh hbut here lies a serious issue.
I agree; it's a difficult issue. How would you resolve it? I can see cases where the woman gets deliberately pregnant to tie up the father, if nothing else, for the child support money. And then, I can also see cases where the woman does not want the child, but the man is against aborting it for whatever reason. Although I wonder of those women who abort, how many let their partners in on the whole thing? Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross