Pro-Life

[BigDrawMan]

I certainly never claimed to be a better person than anyone else. I only claimed that I was a becoming a better person than I was before. If anyone took that to mean that I claimed to be better person than someone who claimed to be pro-choice, then I apologize.

I only meant to detail my personal journey from pro-choice/ambivalent to pro-life.

Like me ask this and I hope it is not unfair to ask - although I don't know in all honesty if you can truly answer it (I don't mean that a slight, I mean that I'm not sure it is a fair question that anyone could truly answer - somethings just can't be broken out and still remain intact).

If your personal journey that you underwent went exactly the same with the exception that you didn't leave your pro-choice stance - for example you might still personally oppose abortion but still recognize that it would be up to each female to control what is done to their own body - would you still consider yourself a better person then before you embarked on your journey?

I hope this question isn't too personal and it is not meant to be antigonistic, I'm just trying to get a handle on if you think you can ever reconcile you beliefs with one that allows choice for others and if you think that holding the belief that others can be pro-choice would for you make you feel you were not as good a person or not?

I personally tend to try to look at these types of belief systems as one where I could be wrong, think about what it would take to convince me to be wrong and look for that evidence as opposed to looking only for evidence that confirms my beliefs. For me this is a win-win approach, if I look to disprove my beliefs and find it hard to do that, I feel that it adds just a little more validation to them, and if I do succeed in shaking or disproving my beliefs I feel I've grown and gained new knowledge and insights. I wish that any of these so-called debate/discussion shows on TV where they usually end up yelling over each other started with asking each person - what would it take for them to drop their position and take up the other sides - it would be a better discussion - if they answer, 'Nothing I'm sure I'm right' - then why have a debate/discussion, because IMO, that person has shut himself off from the learning process.

---Jay

I don't know if I could answer that because I did leave my pro-choice views behind. My outlook on the abortion issue is just part of my growth.

I've heard President Bush say that abortion is an issue that good people disagree on. That's certainly the politically correct thing to say.

Let's put it this way: If I saw an relatively helpless old lady being beaten and mugged, would I do something to help her? Absolutely I would. It's the same way with abortion. I think that the wholesale killing of fetuses is wrong. Therefore, I am using my voting power to try to help them. It isn't much, but there it is. I have to follow my own convictions.
----------
voting is futile.If abortion were illegal, it would be called a C&T like it was pre 1973.
and it is not in the GOP's best interst for it to be illegal.

What have all the GOP presidents done about abortion since 1973?????

nothing
bupkiss
squadouche

yet you still vote for them.



Now I have to question whether I am doing enough. I have never picketed an abortion clinic or tried to block a pregnant woman from entering such a place. In fact, I have generally looked down on people who have done that. But if I feel this strongly about the issue, should I be doing these things?



no.they are worthless.

You should be doing what I said in my previous post.Starting a group to help these women financially and with child care.
You will find much more fulfillment in that than by trying to scare these women into a spontaneous aborion.

put your money where your mouth is

or shut the hell up.

[peacock2121]

I think I got the whole "better person' thing.

You were saying that you finally saw that you were acting inconsistent with your own beliefs and were rationalizing things that were againast who you say you are. You decided to stop lying about what you believe and stand for what you believe.

You call that becoming 'a better person', not compared to others but compared to who you were before you started to stand for what you believe.

[peacock2121]

Like me ask this and I hope it is not unfair to ask - although I don't know in all honesty if you can truly answer it (I don't mean that a slight, I mean that I'm not sure it is a fair question that anyone could truly answer - somethings just can't be broken out and still remain intact).

If your personal journey that you underwent went exactly the same with the exception that you didn't leave your pro-choice stance - for example you might still personally oppose abortion but still recognize that it would be up to each female to control what is done to their own body - would you still consider yourself a better person then before you embarked on your journey?

I hope this question isn't too personal and it is not meant to be antigonistic, I'm just trying to get a handle on if you think you can ever reconcile you beliefs with one that allows choice for others and if you think that holding the belief that others can be pro-choice would for you make you feel you were not as good a person or not?

I personally tend to try to look at these types of belief systems as one where I could be wrong, think about what it would take to convince me to be wrong and look for that evidence as opposed to looking only for evidence that confirms my beliefs. For me this is a win-win approach, if I look to disprove my beliefs and find it hard to do that, I feel that it adds just a little more validation to them, and if I do succeed in shaking or disproving my beliefs I feel I've grown and gained new knowledge and insights. I wish that any of these so-called debate/discussion shows on TV where they usually end up yelling over each other started with asking each person - what would it take for them to drop their position and take up the other sides - it would be a better discussion - if they answer, 'Nothing I'm sure I'm right' - then why have a debate/discussion, because IMO, that person has shut himself off from the learning process.

---Jay

I don't know if I could answer that because I did leave my pro-choice views behind. My outlook on the abortion issue is just part of my growth.

I've heard President Bush say that abortion is an issue that good people disagree on. That's certainly the politically correct thing to say.

Let's put it this way: If I saw an relatively helpless old lady being beaten and mugged, would I do something to help her? Absolutely I would. It's the same way with abortion. I think that the wholesale killing of fetuses is wrong. Therefore, I am using my voting power to try to help them. It isn't much, but there it is. I have to follow my own convictions.
----------
voting is futile.If abortion were illegal, it would be called a C&T like it was pre 1973.
and it is not in the GOP's best interst for it to be illegal.

What have all the GOP presidents done about abortion since 1973?????

nothing
bupkiss
squadouche

yet you still vote for them.



Now I have to question whether I am doing enough. I have never picketed an abortion clinic or tried to block a pregnant woman from entering such a place. In fact, I have generally looked down on people who have done that. But if I feel this strongly about the issue, should I be doing these things?



no.they are worthless.

You should be doing what I said in my previous post.Starting a group to help these women financially and with child care.
You will find much more fulfillment in that than by trying to scare these women into a spontaneous aborion.

put your money where your mouth is

or shut the hell up.

I am so in love with Beedums right now, I can't stand it.

That boy can erase all of the nonsense he posts with just one post.

[nitrah55]

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

Since I asked that question and you didn't answer it, I assume you're talking about me.

I would say that it's not changing the subject. As I understand it, your opposition to abortion is based on a fundemental belief that the taking of innocent human life is never justified under any circumstances. I'm tying to make sure my understanding is correct.

Since war and capital punishment involve the taking of innocent human life, can we assume that you are equally opposed to those? And opposed to having your tax dollars support both?

If you want to make the argument that the taking of innocent human life in war or capital punishment would be unintended, I would respond that in either case, it may be unintended but it is also a near certainty.

[BigDrawMan]

[quote="peacock21
Let's put it this way: If I saw an relatively helpless old lady being beaten and mugged, would I do something to help her? Absolutely I would. It's the same way with abortion. I think that the wholesale killing of fetuses is wrong. Therefore, I am using my voting power to try to help them. It isn't much, but there it is. I have to follow my own convictions.
----------
voting is futile.If abortion were illegal, it would be called a C&T like it was pre 1973.
and it is not in the GOP's best interst for it to be illegal.

What have all the GOP presidents done about abortion since 1973?????

nothing
bupkiss
squadouche

yet you still vote for them.



Now I have to question whether I am doing enough. I have never picketed an abortion clinic or tried to block a pregnant woman from entering such a place. In fact, I have generally looked down on people who have done that. But if I feel this strongly about the issue, should I be doing these things?



no.they are worthless.

You should be doing what I said in my previous post.Starting a group to help these women financially and with child care.
You will find much more fulfillment in that than by trying to scare these women into a spontaneous aborion.

put your money where your mouth is

or shut the hell up.[/quote]

I am so in love with Beedums right now, I can't stand it.
--------------
you always have been
who hasnt?

what annoys me most about the danielh's of the world is that they say they are committed to something, yet do nothing about it except whine and complain.

His conviction is weak.

That boy can erase all of the nonsense he posts with just one post.[/quote]
----------

i have never posted nonsense

bitch

[SportsFan68]

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

Since I asked that question and you didn't answer it, I assume you're talking about me.

I would say that it's not changing the subject. As I understand it, your opposition to abortion is based on a fundemental belief that the taking of innocent human life is never justified under any circumstances. I'm tying to make sure my understanding is correct.

Since war and capital punishment involve the taking of innocent human life, can we assume that you are equally opposed to those? And opposed to having your tax dollars support both?

If you want to make the argument that the taking of innocent human life in war or capital punishment would be unintended, I would respond that in either case, it may be unintended but it is also a near certainty.

I think he was answering both of us, Nitrah. I have more to say on this also.

[BigDrawMan]

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

Since I asked that question and you didn't answer it, I assume you're talking about me.

I would say that it's not changing the subject. As I understand it, your opposition to abortion is based on a fundemental belief that the taking of innocent human life is never justified under any circumstances. I'm tying to make sure my understanding is correct.

Since war and capital punishment involve the taking of innocent human life, can we assume that you are equally opposed to those? And opposed to having your tax dollars support both?
-------------
he has said he is pro death penalty, and voted for Bush twice, so I assume he is pro preemptive war.

There is a unifying theme for these disparate postitions.It is in who controls the taking of life.daniel thinks that the government be in charge.

A true conservative like me would strongly oppose this view.
This is a facist view.Statism.Megalomaniaism




If you want to make the argument that the taking of innocent human life in war or capital punishment would be unintended, I would respond that in either case, it may be unintended but it is also a near certainty.

I think he was answering both of us, Nitrah. I have more to say on this also.

[MarleysGh0st]

Memo to BigDrawMan:

Please learn how to use the Quote button, including the advanced lesson on how to cut & paste the tags, so we can decipher your responses that are now being attributed to someone else.

Thank you, very much!

[BDMs partner]

Memo to BigDrawMan:

Please learn how to use the Quote button, including the advanced lesson on how to cut & paste the tags, so we can decipher your responses that are now being attributed to someone else.

Thank you, very much!

Yinz is wasting yinz breath. Just like "someone's" golf instructor....

[SportsFan68]

Let's put it this way: If I saw an relatively helpless old lady being beaten and mugged, would I do something to help her? Absolutely I would. It's the same way with abortion. I think that the wholesale killing of fetuses is wrong. Therefore, I am using my voting power to try to help them. It isn't much, but there it is. I have to follow my own convictions.

Now I have to question whether I am doing enough. I have never picketed an abortion clinic or tried to block a pregnant woman from entering such a place. In fact, I have generally looked down on people who have done that. But if I feel this strongly about the issue, should I be doing these things?

Children are born all the time into families where they are beaten, underfed, uneducated, or even starved. Many FAS and crack babies were abused before they were born. Now that they are born, they're not going to come across your radar like the once-in-a-lifetime situation of seeing a helpless person be robbed -- they're easy to find, just ask any school or social worker. I'm guessing we agree that wholesale abuse to this particular class of children is wrong. I definitely question whether you are doing enough. At the very least, I believe you should be volunteering at a Boys and Girls Club or joining the StudyBuddy program at the closest school. If there isn't one, you should be starting one. Or you should be adopting an FAS or crack baby.

It's easy to vote with somebody who says her or his views align with yours regarding unborn children. Actually doing something about it after the children are born, that's hard. Feeling as strongly about it as you do, no, you're not doing enough.

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

As for working with children, I have already discussed my going for a teacher certification with my wife. I've told her that it would mean a pretty big expense for the training program, plus a cut in my pay when I'm done. But I just feel compelled to make a move in this direction.

Because we listen to what you say.

You say you object to the taking of innocent human life. Your actions demonstrate that you object only in cases where there's been no birth. If you really believed what you are saying, you would do whatever you could for children born into compromised circumstances. Yet your only plan is for a teaching career, something along the lines of the Ron Clark story, I assume -- all very rewarding and inspiring, but nothng to help at-risk infants. Or perhaps you believe that innocence ends at birth, I can't tell.

I repeat, voting is easy. Yet that is all you are willing to do. Taking action in line with your beliefs, that's hard. For example, if you were going for an obstetric medical degree, intending to help at-risk infants both before and after birth, I would believe that you are sincere in your belief that innocent lives should be protected. I see nothing of the sort. I believe that whatever turned you into someone who describes himself as "pro-life" also turned you into a "Do as I say, not as I do" person.

[danielh41]

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

Since I asked that question and you didn't answer it, I assume you're talking about me.

I would say that it's not changing the subject. As I understand it, your opposition to abortion is based on a fundemental belief that the taking of innocent human life is never justified under any circumstances. I'm tying to make sure my understanding is correct.

Since war and capital punishment involve the taking of innocent human life, can we assume that you are equally opposed to those? And opposed to having your tax dollars support both?

If you want to make the argument that the taking of innocent human life in war or capital punishment would be unintended, I would respond that in either case, it may be unintended but it is also a near certainty.

Both war and capital punishment are certainly regrettable. But the fact is that people are not put to death in this country unless they have first been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime. There are then multiple appeals of this. So where is the taking of innocent life in regards to capital punishment? Or are you referring to the victims of those subjected to capital punishment?

War is not a legal issue here. It is awful, terrible, etc. It is also sometimes necessary to protect innocent life. Just ask those who were oppressed by Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, the Taliban, etc. whether wars in their country were necessary.

But these issues are not the subject of this thread. The issue is abortion. You support allowing mothers and abortionists to continue legally killing healthy, viable unborn babies. I do not.

[danielh41]

Children are born all the time into families where they are beaten, underfed, uneducated, or even starved. Many FAS and crack babies were abused before they were born. Now that they are born, they're not going to come across your radar like the once-in-a-lifetime situation of seeing a helpless person be robbed -- they're easy to find, just ask any school or social worker. I'm guessing we agree that wholesale abuse to this particular class of children is wrong. I definitely question whether you are doing enough. At the very least, I believe you should be volunteering at a Boys and Girls Club or joining the StudyBuddy program at the closest school. If there isn't one, you should be starting one. Or you should be adopting an FAS or crack baby.

It's easy to vote with somebody who says her or his views align with yours regarding unborn children. Actually doing something about it after the children are born, that's hard. Feeling as strongly about it as you do, no, you're not doing enough.

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

As for working with children, I have already discussed my going for a teacher certification with my wife. I've told her that it would mean a pretty big expense for the training program, plus a cut in my pay when I'm done. But I just feel compelled to make a move in this direction.

Because we listen to what you say.

You say you object to the taking of innocent human life. Your actions demonstrate that you object only in cases where there's been no birth. If you really believed what you are saying, you would do whatever you could for children born into compromised circumstances. Yet your only plan is for a teaching career, something along the lines of the Ron Clark story, I assume -- all very rewarding and inspiring, but nothng to help at-risk infants. Or perhaps you believe that innocence ends at birth, I can't tell.

I repeat, voting is easy. Yet that is all you are willing to do. Taking action in line with your beliefs, that's hard. For example, if you were going for an obstetric medical degree, intending to help at-risk infants both before and after birth, I would believe that you are sincere in your belief that innocent lives should be protected. I see nothing of the sort. I believe that whatever turned you into someone who describes himself as "pro-life" also turned you into a "Do as I say, not as I do" person.

The discussion is about the morality and the legality of abortion. I'm not here to share what I have done or will do in regards to my belief. You have no idea what struggles I have had in regards to this, and I am not going to go into them here. So rather than turn to accusations of being a "do as I say, not as I do" person, why don't you just stick to the issue at hand?

[danielh41]

put your money where your mouth is

or shut the hell up.

BigDrawMan, you think that people who voted for Bush twice shouldn't be allowed to vote. And when someone says something that you disagree with, you tell them to shut the hell up. You must be a proctologist's dream--a walking, talking rectum...

[nitrah55]

Why is it that any time a conservative talks about the abortion issue with a liberal, the liberal changes the subject to child abuse or capital punishment or even the tragedy of war?

Since I asked that question and you didn't answer it, I assume you're talking about me.

I would say that it's not changing the subject. As I understand it, your opposition to abortion is based on a fundemental belief that the taking of innocent human life is never justified under any circumstances. I'm tying to make sure my understanding is correct.

Since war and capital punishment involve the taking of innocent human life, can we assume that you are equally opposed to those? And opposed to having your tax dollars support both?

If you want to make the argument that the taking of innocent human life in war or capital punishment would be unintended, I would respond that in either case, it may be unintended but it is also a near certainty.

Both war and capital punishment are certainly regrettable. But the fact is that people are not put to death in this country unless they have first been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime. There are then multiple appeals of this. So where is the taking of innocent life in regards to capital punishment? Or are you referring to the victims of those subjected to capital punishment?

War is not a legal issue here. It is awful, terrible, etc. It is also sometimes necessary to protect innocent life. Just ask those who were oppressed by Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, the Taliban, etc. whether wars in their country were necessary.

But these issues are not the subject of this thread. The issue is abortion. You support allowing mothers and abortionists to continue legally killing healthy, viable unborn babies. I do not.

And you do not support it because- and I am taking my best guess here- you are against the taking of innocent life.

People who are innocent of murder have been executed in error, and they continue to be. Innocent lives are taken in war, by all sides.

If you are against the taking of innocent life in all instances of abortion (enough to say that abortion in all instances is wrong), are you then equally against the taking of innocent life in instances of capital punishment or war (enough to say that war or capital punishment in all instances are wrong)?

If you are, then your position is consistent.

If you're not, then there is, as far as you're concerned, some morally relevant difference between abortion and capital punishment or war which allows for the taking of innocent life in the latter two instances and not in the first instance.

If I may infer from your remarks above, you seem to believe that if a society/government determines that war is necessary for the preservation of that society/government, then war is justified. Ditto for capital punishment, although you didn't actually say that.

Am I more or less correct so far?

Side note: How do you know I "support allowing mothers and abortionists to continue legally killing healthy, viable unborn babies?" I have not stated my position; I'm trying to figure out yours.

[SportsFan68]

The discussion is about the morality and the legality of abortion. I'm not here to share what I have done or will do in regards to my belief. You have no idea what struggles I have had in regards to this, and I am not going to go into them here. So rather than turn to accusations of being a "do as I say, not as I do" person, why don't you just stick to the issue at hand?

This discussion is about the issues you have entered:
Protecting innocent life.
Your questioning of whether you're doing enough.
Your position that your becoming a teacher will help children.
Your belief is that all abortions are morally wrong.
Your hope that you would never have to consider certain circumstances, and the possibility that your convictions would be shaken in those instances.
Your lack of certainty on the legal aspects of abortions without exception.
Your contention that the Roe v. Wade decision was a national tragedy.

So, we have someone who insists that unborn children should be protected because of their innocence, while ignoring innocent born children, except to consider a potentially highly personally rewarding career (although certainly not a lucrative one), who raises the question of whether he is doing enough, and when someone answers that he indeed is not, states that the issue is outside the discussion, even though he himself entered it into the discussion.

We also have someone who entered into the discussion the issue of having the courage of your convictions, yet now that someone wants to pursue that discussion, it suits him to insist that the discussion is only about the morality and legality of abortion.


I have stayed within your parameters for the discussion. Your attempting to say that discussion issues you have presented are now off limits makes me believe that you have indeed become a "do as I say, not as I do" person.

[danielh41]

The discussion is about the morality and the legality of abortion. I'm not here to share what I have done or will do in regards to my belief. You have no idea what struggles I have had in regards to this, and I am not going to go into them here. So rather than turn to accusations of being a "do as I say, not as I do" person, why don't you just stick to the issue at hand?

This discussion is about the issues you have entered:
Protecting innocent life.
Your questioning of whether you're doing enough.
Your position that your becoming a teacher will help children.
Your belief is that all abortions are morally wrong.
Your hope that you would never have to consider certain circumstances, and the possibility that your convictions would be shaken in those instances.
Your lack of certainty on the legal aspects of abortions without exception.
Your contention that the Roe v. Wade decision was a national tragedy.

So, we have someone who insists that unborn children should be protected because of their innocence, while ignoring innocent born children, except to consider a potentially highly personally rewarding career (although certainly not a lucrative one), who raises the question of whether he is doing enough, and when someone answers that he indeed is not, states that the issue is outside the discussion, even though he himself entered it into the discussion.

We also have someone who entered into the discussion the issue of having the courage of your convictions, yet now that someone wants to pursue that discussion, it suits him to insist that the discussion is only about the morality and legality of abortion.


I have stayed within your parameters for the discussion. Your attempting to say that discussion issues you have presented are now off limits makes me believe that you have indeed become a "do as I say, not as I do" person.

My statement about wondering if I was doing enough was more musing to myself when taking into consideration those who do picket abortion clinics, etc. My admission that I was considering a teaching career was made as an ill-advised concession to another post and is unrelated to my views on abortion. These two things are being used to deflect from the issue.

I've already said that I don't know what the legal standards should be. I had hopes for a constructive discussion of this, but alas, I was wong. Rather than discuss these things, you want to discuss me and what I should do for children who have already been born.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Absolutely. A woman's right to choose doesn't exist in the Constitution. It exists because the Supreme Court made up this right, as Justice White noted in his dissent on the decision. I believe that the Court overstepped its authority.

[SportsFan68]

My statement about wondering if I was doing enough was more musing to myself when taking into consideration those who do picket abortion clinics, etc. My admission that I was considering a teaching career was made as an ill-advised concession to another post and is unrelated to my views on abortion. These two things are being used to deflect from the issue.

I've already said that I don't know what the legal standards should be. I had hopes for a constructive discussion of this, but alas, I was wong. Rather than discuss these things, you want to discuss me and what I should do for children who have already been already born.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Absolutely. A woman's right to choose doesn't exist in the Constitution. It exists because the Supreme Court made up this right, as Justice White noted in his dissent on the decision. I believe that the Court overstepped its authority.

I think it's been very constructive, and I wouldn't want to discuss you if you hadn't put that discussion into play. I would appreciate very much a further discussion amongst BBs about people having the courage of their convictions, but I see it ain't gonna happen in this thread. Re-read those long, thoughtful, introspective posts of yours, especially the first one in this thread. A short paragraph narrowing the discussion to only Roe v. Wade rings hollow.

[danielh41]

Since I asked that question and you didn't answer it, I assume you're talking about me.

I would say that it's not changing the subject. As I understand it, your opposition to abortion is based on a fundemental belief that the taking of innocent human life is never justified under any circumstances. I'm tying to make sure my understanding is correct.

Since war and capital punishment involve the taking of innocent human life, can we assume that you are equally opposed to those? And opposed to having your tax dollars support both?

If you want to make the argument that the taking of innocent human life in war or capital punishment would be unintended, I would respond that in either case, it may be unintended but it is also a near certainty.

Both war and capital punishment are certainly regrettable. But the fact is that people are not put to death in this country unless they have first been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime. There are then multiple appeals of this. So where is the taking of innocent life in regards to capital punishment? Or are you referring to the victims of those subjected to capital punishment?

War is not a legal issue here. It is awful, terrible, etc. It is also sometimes necessary to protect innocent life. Just ask those who were oppressed by Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, the Taliban, etc. whether wars in their country were necessary.

But these issues are not the subject of this thread. The issue is abortion. You support allowing mothers and abortionists to continue legally killing healthy, viable unborn babies. I do not.

And you do not support it because- and I am taking my best guess here- you are against the taking of innocent life.

People who are innocent of murder have been executed in error, and they continue to be. Innocent lives are taken in war, by all sides.

If you are against the taking of innocent life in all instances of abortion (enough to say that abortion in all instances is wrong), are you then equally against the taking of innocent life in instances of capital punishment or war (enough to say that war or capital punishment in all instances are wrong)?

If you are, then your position is consistent.

If you're not, then there is, as far as you're concerned, some morally relevant difference between abortion and capital punishment or war which allows for the taking of innocent life in the latter two instances and not in the first instance.

If I may infer from your remarks above, you seem to believe that if a society/government determines that war is necessary for the preservation of that society/government, then war is justified. Ditto for capital punishment, although you didn't actually say that.

Am I more or less correct so far?

Side note: How do you know I "support allowing mothers and abortionists to continue legally killing healthy, viable unborn babies?" I have not stated my position; I'm trying to figure out yours.

Nitrah, I've been lumping you in with everyone else who is posting here, and for that I apologize.

As for the issue of war, I certainly do not believe in peace at all costs. That would cost more innocent lives than war itself. In 1989 and 1990, Saddam Hussein repeatedly said that he was going to take Kuwait. Nobody seemed to believe him, and they were all surprised when he actually did it.

Now we have the President of Iran (I'm not even going to try to spell his name) saying that his goal is to wipe Isreal off the map. So, do we stand by and allow over 7 million Isrealis to be killed in nuclear attacks, or do we help Isreal in defending itself against the evil govvernment of Iran and the whatever-thousand force that has signed up to fight for that government? Which alternative would involve the bigger loss of innocent life?

War should be the absolute last resort, but there are clearly instances where it is necessary, especially in regard to innocent life. So, my views are entirely consistent.

[mom2five]

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Absolutely. A woman's right to choose doesn't exist in the Constitution. It exists because the Supreme Court made up this right, as Justice White noted in his dissent on the decision. I believe that the Court overstepped its authority.

WHAT?????

I've been reading this ongoing mess, why I don't know! Maybe my "right to choose what I read" should be overturned!

I don't need a constitution or any other document to tell me what I can or can't do with my own body!

What if a woman did not "choose" to have sex and gets pregnant? Should she be forced to give birth to a child conceived by a rapist?

This whole issue is infuriating to me, there are so many people who feel as if it's their right to judge and and control others' actions and malign those who don't agree with them. Unless you've actually experienced an unwanted pregnancy, and have had to face the consequences first hand, do not speak of this, ever!

[Here's Fanny!]

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Absolutely. A woman's right to choose doesn't exist in the Constitution. It exists because the Supreme Court made up this right, as Justice White noted in his dissent on the decision. I believe that the Court overstepped its authority.

WHAT?????

I've been reading this ongoing mess, why I don't know! Maybe my "right to choose what I read" should be overturned!

I don't need a constitution or any other document to tell me what I can or can't do with my own body!

Sorry, mom2five, the Constitution only guarantees liberty to those without a functioning uterus. Justice White says so.

As for the capital punishment subject, everybody who thinks that the lives of convicted "criminals" don't matter should check out The Innocence Project. I think it's dot org.

Better yet, look at some individual cases. Kirk Bloodsworth and Rolando Cruz are two good ones to start putting names and stories to that faceless group of people who don't deserve to live.

[nitrah55]

Nitrah, I've been lumping you in with everyone else who is posting here, and for that I apologize.

As for the issue of war, I certainly do not believe in peace at all costs. That would cost more innocent lives than war itself. In 1989 and 1990, Saddam Hussein repeatedly said that he was going to take Kuwait. Nobody seemed to believe him, and they were all surprised when he actually did it.

Now we have the President of Iran (I'm not even going to try to spell his name) saying that his goal is to wipe Isreal off the map. So, do we stand by and allow over 7 million Isrealis to be killed in nuclear attacks, or do we help Isreal in defending itself against the evil govvernment of Iran and the whatever-thousand force that has signed up to fight for that government? Which alternative would involve the bigger loss of innocent life?

War should be the absolute last resort, but there are clearly instances where it is necessary, especially in regard to innocent life. So, my views are entirely consistent.

Actually, no.

Your last post suggests that you can, reluctantly, support a war, even if as a result of your country's participation in that war, innocent lives were lost.

Whenever we enter a war, non-combatants get killed; that's a fact of life. The issue of innocent life in this context is not who's going to kill more non-combatants; the issue is, by entering a war, we are going to kill non-combatants and, knowing that, can we justify our entering the war?

You sound like there are instances where you could support entering a war in order to achieve some greater good. Tell me if I'm wrong here.

The part of that position which is inconsistent with what I think is your abortion position is that you are positing some greater good than the protection of innocent life. If there is some such greater good, then the protection of innocent life is not an absolute.

[danielh41]

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Absolutely. A woman's right to choose doesn't exist in the Constitution. It exists because the Supreme Court made up this right, as Justice White noted in his dissent on the decision. I believe that the Court overstepped its authority.

WHAT?????

I've been reading this ongoing mess, why I don't know! Maybe my "right to choose what I read" should be overturned!

I don't need a constitution or any other document to tell me what I can or can't do with my own body!

What if a woman did not "choose" to have sex and gets pregnant? Should she be forced to give birth to a child conceived by a rapist?

This whole issue is infuriating to me, there are so many people who feel as if it's their right to judge and and control others' actions and malign those who don't agree with them. Unless you've actually experienced an unwanted pregnancy, and have had to face the consequences first hand, do not speak of this, ever!

Are you assuming that I have never had to face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?

And what nobody takes into account in this debate (and this is the problem with the whole pro-choice side) is the life of the child. Nobody is speaking for those who can't speak for themselves, except those on the pro-life side.

[mom2five]

Are you assuming that I have never had to face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?

I thought from the name "daniel" that you were a man, sorry!

And I do believe an unwanted pregnancy can result in an unwanted child.
And I have had close personal contact with unwanted children. It's not a good life for these poor kids!

[danielh41]

Are you assuming that I have never had to face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?

I thought from the name "daniel" that you were a man, sorry!

And I do believe an unwanted pregnancy can result in an unwanted child.
And I have had close personal contact with unwanted children. It's not a good life for these poor kids!

I am a man, but that doesn't mean that I haven't ever had to face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. It does take two people to conceive a child.

[ne1410s]

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Google says that Rose Kennnedy said this! Can't be...