Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
I don't think anybody has argued that government should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children. At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment. If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother. It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do. Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die. These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
Correct, the disagreement concerns the solution, how to end the practice.
How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.
I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.
Its pretty simple FF
Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
Spot on.
For those that don't agree with abortion in the case of rape.
I hope your daughter or wife (or yourself. in the case of a lady) never get raped and have to carry the baby.
For those that think it's up to the woman to decide by herself - I really don't see a problem with that.
The lady concerned has to make all the hard choices in what must be a very difficult time for her.
That in mind, it's up to her, not some daft politician without a clue.
That is not true and it has never been true.Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation. There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere. Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters. And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal. And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places. In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed. Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago. How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however. When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
The Constitution has allready been circumvented. Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated. The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish. Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Rape also doesn't justify a woman to be forced to relive the event every day for 9 months until she can put the baby up for adoption and try to begin to heal psychologically.
I love how you guys wrap yourself in the garments of compassion while conveniently omitting that fact.
The current system is fine. If a woman abhors abortion more than the act of rape, it is her choice to carry the baby.
If not, then she can't be forced to undergo mental torture simply because zealots like yourself think you have a say in this matter.
I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.
Lest you try to say differently.
Anyone here who knows me well enough knows I'm not a fan of abortion. But come on, this is just ridiculous.
That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?
That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
Oh and I am glad too.
That's when it goes well. When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster. I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal. Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became. The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love. She committed suicide at 17. Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism. A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption. She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
I knew the woman and her daughter. It was a total tragedy. Years and years of tragedy.
Government participation is good, just as long as government is on the right side of the issue when particpating. What we have had in the past, is a government that has been on the wrong side of these issues, and has caused great damage and confusion in this nation from being on the wrong side of these issues.Again I do not wish to judge or focus on guilt or accusations of the mother. Whether or not abortion is legal she either does or does not want that baby. She either is or is not willing to intentionally end its life. Whatever her issues are, they are her own business and not any of our business. Let her work out her own mattters of conscience and leave it up to her and God to judge her. And certainly I do not presume to make the terrible choice for a woman who has been victimized by rape or incest.
The issue always with most of us prolifers is the matter of the second life, the unborn child. And even here we have a dichotomy. Can the government legitimately force the woman to live her life to support the life she helped begin? Or does she have the legal right to smoke and drink to excess, do other drugs, and otherwise live in such a way that the baby will almost certainly be born addicted and/or otherwsie severely damaged? Have you ever held a crack baby in your arms? One severely damaged with fetal alcohol syndrome? I have. And it is a heartbreaking thing. Neverthless, almost all of us would say that the government must never be given power to force anybody to live in a specific way. So on that one, we are helpless to intervene.
And would it not be more merciful to the unborn to simply not force him or her to endure that? That also has to be part of the conversation.
The bottom line again is that the ultimate answer is to return to an appreciation and reverence for life. We will continue to too often be a brutal and savage and selfish society so long as it is socially acceptable to throw away hundreds of thousands, even millions, of lives for no better reason than they are inconvenient.
That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
Oh and I am glad too.
That's when it goes well. When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster. I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal. Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became. The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love. She committed suicide at 17. Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism. A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption. She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
I knew the woman and her daughter. It was a total tragedy. Years and years of tragedy.
The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
The admission of you to a hospital after such a situation occurs, and then a DNC or morning after pill maybe (what ever the medicine technology would be), as would be given you in order that you not become pregnant with the rapist baby, would all be part of your health care and the long term healing process to begin, especially after such an event had taken place against you by a sick thug or pervert.I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be. And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion. Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter. And that is where the ethics come in.
Its pretty simple FF
Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?
The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
Its pretty simple FF
Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
Spot on.
For those that don't agree with abortion in the case of rape.
I hope your daughter or wife (or yourself. in the case of a lady) never get raped and have to carry the baby.
For those that think it's up to the woman to decide by herself - I really don't see a problem with that.
The lady concerned has to make all the hard choices in what must be a very difficult time for her.
That in mind, it's up to her, not some daft politician without a clue.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
Its pretty simple FF
Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?
The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this.....
c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need..... give it is life. One incubator should be just as good as another.
Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?
The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this.....
c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need..... give it is life. One incubator should be just as good as another.
But one incubator isn't as good as another is it. And a C-section is quite an invasive procedure and not without its own risks--much more risk than an abortion wouldn't you say?
Prolifers might or might not excerpt one line from a post and try to make it the sum total of the intent of the post, but we can leave that for another discussion. The line that you excerpted however addressed your own assertion of the viability of the fetus being the guideline by which abortion should be deemed acceptable. I am simply pointing out that the newborn baby is no more viable without total care and support any more than is a fetus at any stage of pregnancy.
So for the prolifer, it still comes down to the one question that the pro-abortion crowd so desperately seems to want to dismiss. Is the unborn baby a human life or isn't it? The prolifer says that yes it is, and therefore it is two lives to be considered, and not just the 'choice of the mother'.
Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this.....
c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need..... give it is life. One incubator should be just as good as another.
But one incubator isn't as good as another is it. And a C-section is quite an invasive procedure and not without its own risks--much more risk than an abortion wouldn't you say?
Prolifers might or might not excerpt one line from a post and try to make it the sum total of the intent of the post, but we can leave that for another discussion. The line that you excerpted however addressed your own assertion of the viability of the fetus being the guideline by which abortion should be deemed acceptable. I am simply pointing out that the newborn baby is no more viable without total care and support any more than is a fetus at any stage of pregnancy.
So for the prolifer, it still comes down to the one question that the pro-abortion crowd so desperately seems to want to dismiss. Is the unborn baby a human life or isn't it? The prolifer says that yes it is, and therefore it is two lives to be considered, and not just the 'choice of the mother'.
A c section is also a form of birth. Do you have something against birth now?
Your example of what is and what is not viable...... are not the same thing.
If we make both examples equal... Baby=cells..... then you should still have no problem with giving the very same loving care to a bunch of cells on a table. Feed it... keep it warm... love and care for it..... give it all the life supporting measures you want. Let it have its.... life.
I have no problem answering the question ff. It is human cells from the start. Just as finger nails and hair are human cells.
Living...and having a life of its own are two very different things.
So again... prolifers claim its a life of its own.... there should be zero problem with giving it a c section birth at any point after conception.
Anyone here who knows me well enough knows I'm not a fan of abortion. But come on, this is just ridiculous.
It is quite simple, actually. Either abortion is wrong, or it isn't. If it is wrong except in some cases you are apply situational ethics, not morality.
