Wait a moment... so abortion really does = murder....

[Avatar]

Once again I think that we return to that nebulous concept of "quality" of life.

The issue is not one of finances, but one of an overall ability to provide the child with the best possible life.

But as always, I must say again that for me, the question is not whether it's right or wrong, but, as Lurch says, whether one has the right. It is never bad to give people more choices. More options, and more freedom.

As individuals, we must have the right to make our own choices.

Anyway, sorry for the brevity of the post, am finally back at work, and got some bad flu, so not really up to any serious posting right now.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

avatar: but quality of life doesn't enter. life is ever a game of chance.

[Cail]

But as always, I must say again that for me, the question is not whether it's right or wrong, but, as Lurch says, whether one has the right. It is never bad to give people more choices. More options, and more freedom.

And again, this is why we will not agree. It is very bad to give people the choice to commit murder.

[Avatar]

avatar: but quality of life doesn't enter. life is ever a game of chance.

Aah, but if we regulated parenthood based on the quality of life that the offspring could/should expect/recieve, then it wouldn't have to be such a chancy thing neh?

We have the possibility here of making sure that every child that is born is born into an environment in which they will be sustained and nurtured. And believe me, when you see the hundreds of starving children begging on the side of the road, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Cail, as you say, this is where we disagree. I don't think that it is murder at all.

--Avatar

[sindatur]

Avatar brings up a good point, that Geography might be a deciding factor on if it's justified to abort based upon lack of resources to provide a good life for a child. For the most part, in the US, this is probably disingenuous, as there are almost always opportunities to improve your resources in the future. In some countries, this may not be such a disingenuous argument, as in some parts of the world, your ability to increase your resources for raising a family may be impossible to change.

[dennisrwood]

avatar: i thought you were gainst goverment intrusion? how else will you guarantee that only the people you choose will have children?

sindatur : it seems odd that the folks most able to care for children are the ones aborting by truckloads, eh?

[lurch]

...You believe a baby has the rite to live. Very good. I assume that becoming pregnant in your view is something of Gods doing,,therefore sacred?. or something of such level of sanctity in happening that it (product of a sperm entering an egg and the egg starts dividing)becomes sperate from all realities of the world and heaven and hell,,while carried about for 9 months,,in this world. Point is...there is really nothing sacred about becoming pregnant. The numbers just don't add up to your emotional stance. Zillions of humans were and have been conceived and carried thru to term since caveman first realised his first " doh!"..There is no miracle about it. A woman of child bearing age and within the standard bell curve of healthyness,,alls she has to do is have enough sexual intercourse over a period of time and the odds are very good that she will become pregnant..as happened for along time way before there was even the concept of a single God.
...Where is my humanity you may ask? Go back to my point on Capital punishment and War. I sense this whole emotional diatribe of anti-abortion is actually based in the fear of the cold hand of modern realism reaching into our lives. Its godless. Its all science. There is no heart to it. Sorry I do not buy that spin of reality and do not subscribe to the only way to counter a cold scientific future is by having to believe in God, and ,,well,,etc. In other words,,I am not of so limited imagination and perspective. And neither was the Supreme Court.
..I see you are well versed in the Dred Scott etc. The analogy doesn't work. Again, The Supreme Court tends to favor for the living ,,,and tends to correct itself in cases dealing with the living. So your analogy comes apart because you care more for the not born yet over the living. Amazing how Bush got away with signalling the support for such thought as you just projected,,all the while campaigning he would only nominate judges who were ...fair and balanced...I understand what you say,,I just don't agree with it. The priority of life is in the wrong place and not applied universally.................MEL

[Cail]

Uhhh Lurch, they don't call it "the miracle of life" for nothing. I'm sorry you don't see God's hand in the conception and birth of offspring, but I find it much easier to belive in that before I believe everything is just random chance.

[Avatar]

avatar: i thought you were gainst goverment intrusion? how else will you guarantee that only the people you choose will have children?

By being the government.

Seriously though, yes. It's a problem for me I must admit. On the one hand, I'm completely against government interference in peoples lives.

On the other, I think that the "right" interference could immeasurably improve the world and our lives. Unfortunately, it's a utopian fantasy. What I think of as the "right" interference is unlikely ever to happen.

I constantly struggle between respecting everybodies rights, and imposing what I think is right on others. Luckily, (or not), chances are that I'll never get to try out my theories.

For all my prating about fairness and self-determination, I sometimes think that a benevolent dictatorship is the only way to go. Of course, this has it's own problems, such as not lasting past the person, and naturally I think that my "benevolence" would be best, but it seems that it would overcome so many of problems inherent with government as we know it today.

Actually, there are a lot of people here that I think would make excellent rulers of their own countries. Why is it that people such as this, the reasonable, the rational, the open-minded, are not running things? I'm sure they(we) could do a much better job than the democratically elected "leaders" that we now enjoy.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

Avatar: so you hate goverment unless you're the one running it? isn't that how all pols feel? i kid. i propose a conservative socialism, another pipe dream.

Lurch: wow, i hope you've had years to hone that edge of cynicism. but do you deny that those eggs and sperm sometimes go on to produce a human being? and at what point do you feel that human life begins? or is it such a wearisome question?
and you confuse me with someone else, ask Avatar if you care not to believe me. but i care about all life. i am against abortion, euthenasia, capital punishment, poverty, abuse, crime et al.

[Avatar]

Avatar: so you hate goverment unless you're the one running it? isn't that how all pols feel? i kid.

Unfortunately, it's perhaps to apt to be a joking matter.

They probably all feel the same way. Of course, I could justify myself by saying that my government would be different, and to be fair, I suppose it would be. But that is not to say that my idea's will work.

I like to think that they would. I like to think a lot of things. That doesn't necessarily make them so.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

i think that anyone who was pure of heart who entered our goverment would either go mad or become corrupt themselves. sad to say.

[Avatar]

That's probably true. But then, I'm not thinking of entering government, so much as replacing it completely.

The system is, if not broken, at least badly damaged.

We've discovered the pitfalls of democracy over the last hundred odd years. Maybe it's time for a change? But, as has been said, at the moment, and especially given people in general, it's the most workable idea. Not the ideal, not the best, but the most workable.

We'll have to improve it in some way.

--A

[Queeaqueg]

I think abortions are fine. It is a women's right to decide what happens. She may be underage or was raped and wants to get rid of the baby.
I don't think it is right that abortion is used as a form of protection like the pill.
Like syaing "don't worry about protection, if I get pregnant I will get an abortion"
Something like that is wrong.

[dennisrwood]

but how do prevent abortion as birth control?

[Queeaqueg]

That I don't know. There is no way...
Women who think that it is right though are a bit sick in my opinion. The idea of killing a new life is horrorible but people who have been raped or are underage might lose their life as well. Some say that they could be sent to a home but the women would grow emotions when they see their child.
I just think that anyone who thinks abortion can be used as 'protection' are a bit wrong in the head.

[sindatur]

but how do prevent abortion as birth control?

Well I posted this before, and it didn't go over well, and I am not actually for it (although it does have it's merits, if not for the fact that we're talking about the Government). But, if a woman goes for a 3rd abortion (for example, maybe 3 isn't the right number), she would only be allowed to have it, if she agreed to be reversibly sterilized. And when the woman is in the right point in her life where she is ready to have a child, the sterility is reversed, and if/when she gets pregnant again, she must have the baby.

I don't think I could ever vote to approve it, but, I have known women who had 3 or maybe even 5 abortions by the time they were 18, and I definitely think that is a crime.

When it comes right down to it though, it really doesn't matter too much what we decide today in the abortion debate. Because very soon (if we don't find a way to colonize places otehr than Earth) the decision will be taken out of our hands because Population growth will demand severe population controls in a relatively short number of years, or eveolution will see to it, that our population is decreased, one way or another

[lurch]

...Cynicism??..hey don't try to cover me with that " Kevins dirt". How many micro video's do you have to watch on PBS or in ,,oh oh,,dare I mention it..science class,,of the sperms wiggling their way up the tubes and finally finding the egg and one being allowed to " enter"..Thats what sperm do. Thats what the egg does. Humans, dogs, frogs etc, etc etc. Sorry,,didn't see God in the videos or movies..just sperm and egg doing what they designed to do. Who designed them? ..let me ask...where in the world do you get the idea that it had or has to be a who? Everything mysterious is automatically assigned to God. If thats what you do and believe, then as mankind understands more and more,,then I guess you are all set to be frustrated and disappointed...oh well.
...Also,,I agree that is of truelly unfortunate use of abortion for just not wanting a baby..but...when the same folks who are anti-abortion are against the morning after pill..then I have serious problems . " When does life start" seems to be after about three drinks in a bar on a busy saturday nite. I believe the courts and doctors have agreed that somewhere around the beginning of 2nd trimester the fetus is doing enough on its own, that it could be considered alive,,yet fetus'es don't develop all at the same rate...so the question of when do I think life starts is non sequitor and another dodge into the emotional rather than face the real..............Abortion is a very serious issue with the woman who have and do contemplate getting one. I have never known any woman who got an abortion to do so cavalierly. The insinueation is another aspect of women aren't smart or serious enough to make that decision. horsecrap!..more Kevin's Dirt!......MEL

[Invain]

It all comes back to the difference of approach towards the unborn - and because of it this discussion will never reach a satisfying conclusion. For me, the undeliberate life of the woman is more important than the potential life of her unborn child. Thus I find it immoral for the Government to force the women to sacrifice themselves for the unborn.

I find the concept of using abortion as a birth control method disgusting. Still, I believe that the right to choose is more important than the risk of mass abortions.

When it comes right down to it though, it really doesn't matter too much what we decide today in the abortion debate. Because very soon (if we don't find a way to colonize places otehr than Earth) the decision will be taken out of our hands because Population growth will demand severe population controls in a relatively short number of years, or eveolution will see to it, that our population is decreased, one way or another

Unfortunately I have to agree, adding that I don't believe in possible space colonisation - at this rate we will more likely deplet the vital resources before sufficient technology is developed. Perhaps it's better, one wasted planet is more than enough.

I really need some sleep now, if something is unclear I'll rephrase it tomorrow.

[dennisrwood]

i'm against the 'morning after pill' because of the danger of such a drug. an unregulated drug that cause spontaneous miscarriage? and how will you know what the problem is if you find your daughter passed out in a pool of blood?