Abortion

Okie dokie... So since Sithsaber408's body has no natural need to f*ck, noone elses has??

Mine does!

Soleran30> A solution? 😄 A brainstorm!
Would be wonderful. How about... those opposed to abortions abstain from having them, and those in favour can have one if they so choose???

The problem is that, there is no arguing with CUFs http://skepdic.com/ultrafundamentalism.html
There just is not. Like other fundamentalists movements they view their beliefs as the ONLY way, and the rest of us are heathens out to do EVIL!!!
This is the arguments they use:
Two of the most vocal advocates of CUF are evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Their response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American targets reveals some of the essential beliefs attached to this worldview. They claimed that "liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility...because their actions have turned God's anger against America." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14&notFound=true )

According to Falwell, God allowed "the enemies of America...to give us probably what we deserve." Robertson agreed. The American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," said Falwell, and Robertson agreed. Federal courts bear part of the blame, too, said Falwell, because they've been "throwing God out of the public square." Also "abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked," said Falwell. Robertson agreed.
(Here's the full story http://www.skepdic.com/sounds/falwell.mp3)
People who think like that are beyong reasoning!

Mine doesn't.

I think it is important to distinguish between cases where abortion is a necessity and cases where it is a matter of circumstances/ desires of the subject.

Originally posted by The Omega
Would be wonderful. How about... those opposed to abortions abstain from having them, and those in favour can have one if they so choose???

Originally posted by shaber
I think it is important to distinguish between cases where abortion is a necessity and cases where it is a matter of circumstances/ desires of the subject.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Good luck with that. I, along with others, have been trying to get the pro life people to understand this point for a while now.

There is actually no need whatsoever to distinguish these. The reason the woman is getting one is irrelevent.

doh tsk tsk even freedoms such as abortion need to have checks and balances.............

I believe that this is the first time that I've posted in this thread, but if I have already voiced my opinions and have forgotten, I apologize.

I'm Catholic, so you can probably see what's coming in this post from a mile away. I am against abortion in all cases. Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not murder. We define murder as "the intentional killing of an innocent human being." Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. It is, in all circumstances to be considered murder in my mind.

Factually wrong then, aren't you? Yes. I can't believe it this is still being raised.

WE define murder as? No, the definition of murder (remember, it's a legal term only) is "Unlawful killing of an innocent human being". Abortion isn't unlawful. Let not keep revisiting the murder argument please.

It's a legal term, not a moral one (fact). Therefore to you it's just immoral killing. Read back over previous pages before swanning in here with claims like that and rehashing a debate that has been raised and killed more times than it should ever be necessary.

Religion has no place here either.

-AC

Originally posted by soleran30
doh tsk tsk even freedoms such as abortion need to have checks and balances.............

I was referring to "we" as Catholics. And I'm afraid that reading over nearly 300 pages would be an absoloutly absurd request. Not only that, but abortion is often a very religion-based situation.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Checks and balances only apply for the branches of government and the powers of those branches of government.

which on turn dictate how they will handle laws regulations and eventually the people in that society. Same with abortion, checks balances and how it is handled.

Originally posted by soleran30
which on turn dictate how they will handle laws regulations and eventually the people in that society. Same with abortion, checks balances and how it is handled.

The only "checks and balances" abortion needs is price. Limiting the window where a fetus can be terminated will only limit a freedom that has no real reason to be limited.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Actually it will only determine how difficult getting a law passed would be.

The only "checks and balances" abortion needs is price. Limiting the window where a fetus can be terminated will only limit a freedom that has no real reason to be limited.

So yeah checks and balances do have an effect your just splitting hairs.

uh huh yeah well ok your opinion is noted.......................limiting certain freedoms isn't always a bad thing.

Originally posted by The Omega
Okie dokie... So since Sithsaber408's body has no natural need to f*ck, noone elses has??

Mine does!

Soleran30> A solution? 😄 A brainstorm!
Would be wonderful. How about... those opposed to abortions abstain from having them, and those in favour can have one if they so choose???

The problem is that, there is no arguing with CUFs http://skepdic.com/ultrafundamentalism.html
There just is not. Like other fundamentalists movements they view their beliefs as the ONLY way, and the rest of us are heathens out to do EVIL!!!
This is the arguments they use:
Two of the most vocal advocates of CUF are evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Their response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American targets reveals some of the essential beliefs attached to this worldview. They claimed that "liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility...because their actions have turned God's anger against America." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14&notFound=true )

According to Falwell, God allowed "the enemies of America...to give us probably what we deserve." Robertson agreed. The American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," said Falwell, and Robertson agreed. Federal courts bear part of the blame, too, said Falwell, because they've been "throwing God out of the public square." Also "abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked," said Falwell. Robertson agreed.
(Here's the full story http://www.skepdic.com/sounds/falwell.mp3)
People who think like that are beyong reasoning!

Hmmm.....

1940's-1960's: God in shcool, acknowledged as part of this country, under God in Pledge of Allegiance, sodomy and abortion illegal = Peace, prosperity and growth for America

1960's-present: No prayer in school, God in process of removed from country monuments, money, and pledge of allegiance, abortion legal, gay marriage on the way= AIDS, Columbine, 9/11......

Yeah, those dudes are WAY off base..... 😉

Posted by Alpha Centauri: "It's a legal term, not a moral one (fact)"

--Where do you happen to be getting your facts from because there wouldnt be any opposition to abortion if there wasnt a moral problem with it. A major argument behind pro-life is that abortions these days are used as freely as condoms; without much thought. Its just "well shes pregnant again lets just get an abortion." Then a half a year later: "Ooops, not again! Oh well, go get an abortion... 🧑‍⚕️" You see where Im going. Abortion IS technically murder on a smaller scale because that person is considered alive as soon as the embryo is created and killing it then is wiping off its chance at life, defying moral and ethical as well as spiritual values for usually selfish purposes. (minus medical or rape cases).

Heres the general idea i support: If you are taking actions that could result in a child, then you should be married and prepared for a child if it were to occur; not be relying on abortions as a cushion option for your problems.

👆 ✅

Why don't christians just use their right to liberty to do something constructive instead of monkeying with the liberty of everyone else? sometimes i wish anyone who quoted scripture or claimed spiritual or moral authority when trying to pass legislation could be impeached for incompotence.

Originally posted by soleran30
So yeah checks and balances do have an effect your just splitting hairs.

Originally posted by soleran30
uh huh yeah well ok your opinion is noted.......................limiting certain freedoms isn't always a bad thing.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hmmm.....

1940's-1960's: God in shcool, acknowledged as part of this country, under God in Pledge of Allegiance, sodomy and abortion illegal = Peace, prosperity and growth for America

1960's-present: No prayer in school, God in process of removed from country monuments, money, and pledge of allegiance, abortion legal, gay marriage on the way= AIDS, Columbine, 9/11......

Yeah, those dudes are WAY off base..... 😉

1930's-1960's:God in shcool, acknowledged as part of this country, under God in Pledge of Allegiance, sodomy and abortion illegal = The Great Depression, Cold War, Vietnam War, Segregation laws, etc

1960's-present: No prayer in school, God in process of removed from country monuments, money, and pledge of allegiance, abortion legal, gay marriage on the way= End of Cold War, Budget surplus for U.S, Fall of Berlin Wall .......

Maybe those "dudes" ARE way off base...

I think Sith forgets to consider the opposite side of the argument.

Always a bad sign.

Originally posted by StyleTime
No.

You're a bit unclear here. Are you saying that the last line you wrote is my opinion?

Here I'll even say it one more time for you, checks and balances in the govt apply to freedoms we enjoy today in the USA.

Nope here your opinion has been noted and filed away with those that are 100% opposite of your opinion.....................yeah ok, there you go.

Offering choices to use certain freedoms need to be balanced with the consequences of taking chances. Its a whole risk vs reward system, no risk and to many unnecessary risks are taken and abused.

"Why don't christians just use their right to liberty to do something constructive instead of monkeying with the liberty of everyone else?"

--Because it is clear to me that Christians are the only people these days with any values at all.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
"Why don't christians just use their right to liberty to do something constructive instead of monkeying with the liberty of everyone else?"

--Because it is clear to me that Christians are the only people these days with any values at all.

LOL. Racist much?

Originally posted by Dawson
I believe that this is the first time that I've posted in this thread, but if I have already voiced my opinions and have forgotten, I apologize.

I'm Catholic, so you can probably see what's coming in this post from a mile away. I am against abortion in all cases. Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not murder. We define murder as "the intentional killing of an innocent human being." Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. It is, in [b]all circumstances to be considered murder in my mind. [/B]

Let me re-iterate for you: not everyone thinks that a foetus is human. Some people believe that the potential for life does not outweigh the right and freedoms of women. I think that if we decided to think in potentialities, we should not be allowed to do anything that threatens our lives or ability to reproduce. Example: we shouldn't allowed to drive cars because they might explode or crash. We shouldn't have electricity because the radiation could cause cancer.

Not really a way to live.

And you know, I think the majority of people in the thread agree with you in that murder in wrong...