Abortion

Originally posted by Captain King
Bardock, would you agree that the government should have a neutral stance on abortion?

It should neither force nor ban abortion, yes.

Originally posted by Captain King
Everyone claims they want government to stay out of abortion and remain neutral, but government uses the power of the state through courts and police to protect those committing and getting abortions, therefore it is not a neutral position.

Yes it is. The government doesn't protect those getting abortions anymore than any other citizen....as for police, if you mean they protect people that get an abortion, again, just for the same reasons it protects those that do not. It is neutral on the issue. It does not take away the freedom.

Originally posted by Captain King
The only 'neutral' position, would involve an unlikely and unattractive scenario of "free-fire zones" where government would neither stop abortions for occurring, nor protect abortionists from harm. As this is obviously not a situation most anyone would endorse. The battle for life or a false sense of choice continues.

Nonsense.

Originally posted by Captain King
You can't even choose to smoke where you want too, but somehow you think the government was nice enough to give you reproductive rights.

The government doesn't "give me rights", it takes away freedoms. And it didn't take away the freedom to reproduce, yet. I think you should be allowed to smoke where you want, but at the moment we have to protect our freedom to get abortions, once fascists like you stop attacking that, we can work on giving back the freedom to smoke. One step at a time.

Originally posted by Captain King
Bardock, would you agree that the government should have a neutral stance on abortion?

Everyone claims they want government to stay out of abortion and remain neutral, but government uses the power of the state through courts and police to protect those committing and getting abortions, therefore it is not a neutral position.

The only 'neutral' position, would involve an unlikely and unattractive scenario of "free-fire zones" where government would neither stop abortions for occurring, nor protect abortionists from harm. As this is obviously not a situation most anyone would endorse. The battle for life or a false sense of choice continues.

You can't even choose to smoke where you want too, but somehow you think the government was nice enough to give you reproductive rights.

You're wrong and soon to be banned. The government SHOULD be involved in protecting those individuals...even if they will leave the decision up to the individuals...the government has the responability to protect those rights that they are granting its citizens or the government fails at is fundamental purpose.

I don’t see really any comparison to smoking and abortion, they are fundamentally different, one is a public health issue and the other is an individual one. As for the issue with smoking it is not the government that imposes the ban but enforces the one that has been passed by the people. Personally I disagree with the ban in privately own business and should be the decision of the owner but that is another issue all together.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
However, I tire of people claiming that the Foetus is not human. It is human. Get over it already. I don't understand why certain people feel a human isn't really human until it leaves the vaginal canal ?

Tis a human, but not a human being. Big difference.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If a woman feels the need to have an abortion, then I feel she should do so as early as possible, so the foetus doesn't get closer to full term. But she should also recognize that she killed what would have been her child. As long as she can do that, I then in my eyes she is a responsible person.

She doesn't have to recognise anything. Women who have abortions don't consider it to be a child, and never wanted it, so I doubt they'll be thinking that they are 'killing' something which would have been their child.

Originally posted by Jaime Sommers
She doesn't have to recognise anything. Women who have abortions don't consider it to be a child, and never wanted it, so I doubt they'll be thinking that they are 'killing' something which would have been their child.

I have to agree with SoD when it comes to personal decisions, and as you just stated, that rules out most abortions. As we all know, the law has to either legalize or illegalize abortions, so basically the law has to decide whether to do the right thing for the minortiy (the responsible) or the majority (the unresponsible). In this case, the govornment should do the right thing for the minority, because otherwise the responsible would be punished for the actions of the unresponsible.

So that's why I support abortion legalization despite my views on how rarely it is right.

Originally posted by Jaime Sommers
Tis a human, but not a human being. Big difference.

all humans regardless of thier status or development are endowed with rights and protection under the law of the American Constitution.

As such, abortion is a criminal act. Just because the government does it does not make it any less criminal.

It is murder and it violates the rights of a human being who is unable to protect itself. It takes a sick bastard to commit abortions, and takes just as sick a bastard to make excuses for it.

The role of the state is not to decide if or not abortion should be legal. But rather punish those who commit or have asscosiated with the criminal act of abortions differantly. For example, you won't be charged for rape the same in Texas and you would in Californa.

But in both states rape is illegal correct? Because it's a crime, there's no getting around it.

That's abortion, it's a crime against the youngest of humans, the unborn child. And though individual states have the right to be more leniant or more strict, ultimately it is no anybody's right to commit and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

And that's why I'm voting for Ron Paul, because with his human-life ammendmant that's precisely what would happen. It does not take a big federal government to criminalize this sick and twisted deed. Only the courage and will of a few brave men and women.

If liberals listend to thier own advise and told thier boyfriends to pullout half as much as they tell George Bush, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. You have only yourself to blame if you get pregnant. I do not feel sorry for you, and I sure as hell would not give you the right to kill for your own incompetance.

A lot of people have opinions about this subject but you seem to be obsessed with it. Honestly, is it vagina envy? Nothing wrong with that, could happen to anyone.
But why are you minding other people's business? Do you shed a tear everytime you hear about someone having an abortion? Why do you think that you can tell others how to live their lives? Is your life so meaningless or do you feel superior?
Just what would you do if cells you save from being aborted grow up pro-choice? Do you have nightmares about stupid teenagers having sex and then ending up at an abortion clinic and you wake up sweating or what?
Just get your head out of strangers' wombs.

Originally posted by Captain King
If liberals listend to thier own advise and told thier boyfriends to pullout half as much as they tell George Bush, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. You have only yourself to blame if you get pregnant. I do not feel sorry for you, and I sure as hell would not give you the right to kill for your own incompetance.

AHAHAHAHA!!! Holy shit dude...I laughed my ass off. (bout the GW Bush comment.)

True dat...unless you are raped, you can only blame yourself.

My wife puked so much during the first trimester of her second child that she was running around most of the time dehydrated. She could hardly keep anything down...it was really bad. It got so bad that I thought that we would lose the baby or the doctor would make her get an abortion so we could keep my wife around. I would like to say it was my prayers and the vigilant care I gave my wife that kept both my wife and the baby. Why would a bring up religion in a debate about politics? Simple: our country's morals or norms are built upon religious principles because the people dictate the norms/morals. Regardless of how much separation of church and state there is, you can get around this fact. (The fact that religious morals are weaved through the American people so much so that religion permeates that laws in place.)

Do religious people, based upon the religious precepts that they abide by, have the right to dictate another's rights? This is a democratic republic so the answer is indirectly "yes". Our reps should officiate on behalf of us and their officiation should be in alignment with what the people want.

I personally think it is a sin to have an abortion simply because you don't want to have the baby.

If I were a senator and it came time for me to vote on a new bill that illegalized abortion, I honestly don't know what I would do at this point. If the majority of my citizens wanted me to vote "no", it would be hard for me to make that decision. However, if the majority of them wanted me to vote "yes", then I would, of course, vote "yes".

Originally posted by dadudemon

If I were a senator and it came time for me to vote on a new bill that illegalized abortion, I honestly don't know what I would do at this point. If the majority of my citizens wanted me to vote "no", it would be hard for me to make that decision. However, if the majority of them wanted me to vote "yes", then I would, of course, vote "yes".

Which is exactly why Democracy is without a doubt failing.

The majority has no right to oppress the minority. The non aggression principle should be applied at all times.

Okay, I've got an theory.
Let's say that (I'm pro-choice but for the sake of argument) abortion becomes illegal. With one condition. (Now I have no medical knowledge so this will be sci-fi.) Every male, alive or will be born, will have their testicles removed, so no need for birth control and abortion. Whenever a male wants to reproduce, he'll undergo some hormone treatment. (I said I'm not knowledge girl, but please, just for fun.)
Would you vote yes? Would you be outraged why others want to mess with your body and make decisions for you? Would it be weird having women involved in the decision-making, who will never face such problems therefore it has little, if no effect on their lives?
Though being a woman, I would be totally outraged. I would be pro-choice in that case, too. First, that's your life, and I think you can make a decision for yourself. Second, you can explain it to me all day, I will never have the slightest idea how it feels to have testicles.
Freedom of choice, mine and yours.

Originally posted by Dulcie
Okay, I've got an theory.
Let's say that (I'm pro-choice but for the sake of argument) abortion becomes illegal. With one condition. (Now I have no medical knowledge so this will be sci-fi.) Every male, alive or will be born, will have their testicles removed, so no need for birth control and abortion. Whenever a male wants to reproduce, he'll undergo some hormone treatment. (I said I'm not knowledge girl, but please, just for fun.)
Would you vote yes? Would you be outraged why others want to mess with your body and make decisions for you? Would it be weird having women involved in the decision-making, who will never face such problems therefore it has little, if no effect on their lives?
Though being a woman, I would be totally outraged. I would be pro-choice in that case, too. First, that's your life, and I think you can make a decision for yourself. Second, you can explain it to me all day, I will never have the slightest idea how it feels to have testicles.
Freedom of choice, mine and yours.

However, I understand the point you are trying to make that man shouldn't order the woman not to have the abortion, yet, I do believe the man deserves a say in the matter, he deserves notification, for it's his child too, but the final decision should always be the woman's.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think testicles removed at birth equates baby removed whenever, (one reason is that testicles give pleasure when tickled (I know, I'm a boy)) so your analogy is pretty suckish.

However, I understand the point you are trying to make that man shouldn't order the woman not to have the abortion, yet, I do believe the man deserves a say in the matter, he deserves notification, for it's his child too, but the final decision should always be the woman's.

Why not wait until the child is about 6 or 7 and see if the child wants to be aborted. If the child says yes, suck it up into a large vacuum cleaner one body part at a time. If it says no....well, then you can't abort the child....DUH!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why not wait until the child is about 6 or 7 and see if the child wants to be aborted. If the child says yes, suck it up into a large vacuum cleaner one body part at a time. If it says no....well, then you can't abort the child....DUH!!!

Originally posted by lord xyz
What?

That was a plug at both pro abortionists and anti abortionists...I am cynical like that sometimes. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was a plug at both pro abortionists and anti abortionists...I am cynical like that sometimes. 😉

Originally posted by Dulcie
Okay, I've got an theory.
Let's say that (I'm pro-choice but for the sake of argument) abortion becomes illegal. With one condition. (Now I have no medical knowledge so this will be sci-fi.) Every male, alive or will be born, will have their testicles removed, so no need for birth control and abortion. Whenever a male wants to reproduce, he'll undergo some hormone treatment. (I said I'm not knowledge girl, but please, just for fun.)
Would you vote yes? Would you be outraged why others want to mess with your body and make decisions for you? Would it be weird having women involved in the decision-making, who will never face such problems therefore it has little, if no effect on their lives?
Though being a woman, I would be totally outraged. I would be pro-choice in that case, too. First, that's your life, and I think you can make a decision for yourself. Second, you can explain it to me all day, I will never have the slightest idea how it feels to have testicles.
Freedom of choice, mine and yours.

That wasn't very good way to make a point. You claim men would be outraged because the mother/people made a choice for them, the testicle sucking part, yet on the flip-side, killing a fetus (pro-choice/abortion) would equate to the same point you're trying to make.

ITS A BLOODY BABY!!!!! GET OVER IT

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
ITS A BLOODY BABY!!!!! GET OVER IT

Originally posted by Bardock42
It gets more bloody after through the abortion.

I actually don't think it does...

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was a plug at both pro abortionists and anti abortionists...I am cynical like that sometimes. 😉