Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by tommccann, Feb 27, 2006.
None Taken:sure: :lol:
Ah, but the death penalty and war is okeydokey. Gotta love hypocritical organized religion.
Wrong CDRU. The Catholic church opposes the death penalty and is none too happy about the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy.
The problem you are not seeing here is that whenever an unwanted pregnancy occurs, you will be forcing the woman to cry rape as the only legal way to terminate the pregnancy. How many consensual encounters will turn to rape once a woman is backed into a corner. Thousands of men will become Kobe Bryant-ized and have to defend themselves in court..... (I make no value judgements for or against Kobe as I was not there, I'm only stating that a potential for gross harm will be created if they do open the abortion only in case of rape or incest argument). The only way to avoid the situation is to not slam the door on abortion. I have no problem with banning them in the last trimester as an elective procedure (barring a medical reason such as to save the mother). I could even support reducing them in the second trimester. I would argue that most occur in the first trimester well before they "show". This is the line in the sand I hope they would honor. I agree it should not be like Russia where many treat abortion as just another form of birth control.
There has to be some middle ground, but unfortunately I don't see that happening. The right has more votes now as the Baby Boomers have gotten older and become more conservative (my father was close to a hippie in the 60s as he had me when he was 19.... now he is slightly to the right of Rush Limbaugh). Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. How many women will have to die in backroom or homemade abortions before they learn the lesson again....? Conservative Republicans have a tendency to want to try and remake the world into what THEY think it should be instead of what it is. Look at the mess in Iraq for an example of this....
And I'm not taking the Democrat's side totally either. I'm a moderate Republican who thinks that both sides have gone off the deep end lately, but I think that the rush to ban abortions is bad idea for a myriad of reasons. If I lived in the bible belt states, I'd be thinking it is the 1960s and a metaphorical Berlin wall is about to be built. They are going to use World War 1 era trench war techniques. You take a little freedom here, a little there, and then some more, until you wake up one morning and you realize that they marched the whole football field while everyone was asleep. As I live in a blue state, NJ will probably be one of the last to fall, unless they find out a way to come up with a federal ban on them.
But I don't see the Catholic Church condemning those who kill when told to by their leaders. I'm a Catholic and never understood the disconnect. Thou Shalt Not Kill sounds pretty simple to me...... Maybe I should read the fine print... Thou Shalt Not Kill (unless you are smiting one's homeland enemies)
Our argument is moot as to the subject of this thread as we agree abortion should not be made illegal. However-
I suspect there are very few women, OR men, who relish the prospect of an abortion or regularly use it as their relied upon means of birth control. It is far too painful, traumatic and expensive. I imagine after the first time, at most the second or third, even the most amoral, thick-brained dolt would figure out there's a better way.
This is not to in anyway excuse their thoughtlessness or neglect if that is the reason for the abortion. But this is where education prior to sexual maturity becomes so vital. From a young age, BEFORE they begin engaging in sexual conduct, alternatives to pregnancy, including abstinence, should be taught to ALL children and continued through their secondary schooling. Part of that is of course the alternative of abortion. By emphasizing the multitude of negatives of abortion, and we all agree there are many, physical, mental and financial, it should be possible to make abortion, as a "means of birth control", a last resort for most if not all. At that point, "abortion as birth control" becomes almost exclusively the solution ONLY for "accidents" like the couple Dang describes.
Unfortunately, strongly discouraging or outlawing abortion as a method of birth control inevitably leads to the persons you describe in your first paragraph above having more babies. Persons who we can generally assume might be poor and neglectful parents as opposed to the conscientious among us who DO take all possible precautions to avoid pregnancy and therefore the need for "abortion as birth control". In addition, you take away this reproductive choice for these same couples who HAVE been careful and thoughtful in their actions but nevertheless have an "accident"!
I cannot speak for other churches but I have heard the Catholic church condemn was as a an instrument of foreign policy and talk about specific wars. In fact the church has openly stated opposition to our involvement in Iraq---but not Afghanistan. The problem is that most religious philosophies do allow for some gray area. Personally I don't dispute that one exists but what it is and how to explain it are where religion in general is open to criticism. But you are correct that they do not tell soldiers they will receive eternal damnation if they follow orders. That situation however differs from a medical professional who participates ina an abortion. I happen to disagree with their stand on abortion but I do see it differently.
But the earlier claim was that they don't oppose the death penalty or war and that is untrue.
If your pro life consider our ex education czar who stated that if your primary goal is to reduce crime we should------or if hilter was aborted this would be??
HDMe, you seem to be saying that the man should be able to make the decision that since he doesn't want a baby, and doesn't want to support a child, but the woman doesn't want an abortion, then she can keep the baby and he shouldn't have any obligations for the child.
OTOH, if she doesn't want the baby, and he does, she should have to carry the child for nine months rather than get an abortion, and then he can have it, and she should be free of any obligations to the child. How much control should the guy have over her life for those nine months? Should he be obligated to her in any way for the nine months of her life when her obligation is a little higher than his, or does her participation in the act of sex obligate her to nine months before she gets to pass the kid off? Does it count if she didn't get an orgasm out of it?
Whether you are pro life or pro choice, this is an issue that may never be resolved in this country. It shouldn't be either a political or moral issue, but it is. I think Roe will be overturned. I'm not wise enough to say whether it should be overturned.
well if you don"t roe right your boat will overturn
No matter WHAT happens, 50% of the population will be ticked off about the outcome......
Let me make sure I'm clear before I answer your post...
I believe a man is and should be responsible. I also believe the man and woman should jointly make the decision on what to do. My post was mostly directed at the folks who say "men are just sperm donors" or "it's my body I'll do what I want and men should shut up". To those people I was proposing that IF they think so little of men and think men contribute so little, then please don't change your tune and want support from the man.
It doesn't mean I don't believe men should be supportive... I was just playing devil's advocate and saying "be careful what you wish for" to those who play the man-bad-woman-good card. Too many people want to diminish the role of the man, and all I was saying is if you truly feel that way then you should also feel that way when you choose to have a baby that the father doesn't want. If you don't give the man a choice and don't think he is entitled to a choice, then don't blame him for the choice you make.
In this hypothetical situation... if the man wants the baby, but the woman doesn't... and if she agrees to carry the baby to term to give to the father... then I absolutely believe the man should be there in whatever capacity she wants and he can give to support her (financially and emotionally) through those 9 months or so. He has an obligation to her as well as their baby. This doesn't mean he should get to "control" her... just that he should be there.
I also believe that the woman still has the right and should have the opportunity to change her mind, if during the pregnancy she changes her mind and doesn't want to give the baby up but wants joint custody or something. A lot can happen during the 9 months, so I would hate to see her make a rash decision that she wasn't allowed to change.
Abortions are pretty final, and women who have them and later regret it unfortunately can't undo things... but women who are coerced or for whatever reason decide to give up their baby early in the pregnancy should be allowed a chance to change their mind since they still can.
According to the infamous anti-abortion terrrorist organization known as Opperation Rescue, the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.
And let's not forget the Catholic Church's complete lack of concern durring WWII about the holocaust.
Something to keep in mind. The law in South Dakota, and another in Louisiana (I think?) allow abortions to save the life of the mother. This is included because the Supreme Court has shot down laws that did not include it, but many abortion opponents will not be satisfied until this loophole is also filled. I had a discussion some years ago with a Catholic priest who firmly believed any mother should be happy to die so that the child could have a chance to live, and of course all the little orphan brothers and sisters should also be happy about it. I pointed out he had no wife, or daughters, and it was kind of like the cow volunteering that the animals would provide a nice ham and egg breakfast for the farmer.
I always find it odd when I hear about Catholic Priests offering marital counceling.
Cute saying, wrong, but I guess the liberals eat this stuff up....
Its really a right to due process, a right to life not being subjectively and arbitrarily denied. I cannot understand the need to mix arguments regarding the death penalty with the arguments about abortion. Suffice it to say that the criminal GOT his say in court, probably more than one court and more than one judge (appeals). The baby received NONE of that. All it takes is for the mother to say "kill it" and its done, no questions asked. Why the courts are likely to jump down your throat if you even try to talk her out of it or offer a contrary opinion. If a teenage girl gets pregnant, her parents don't even have to be told. They have to be told about a hangnail, but not about a pregnancy or abortion. If the parent is there when the girl has councelling about the "options" (i.e. lobby for the abortion) the parent cannot mention alternatives (ie adoption, ...) cannot speak anything against abortion. I know because not that long ago, a friend of mine was in that exact situation with his daughter. The doctor went on about the "safe" abortion. The father was told at the beginning that any comments to contridict or suggest another course of action and he would have the sheriff come in and take him away. The abortion lobby is making a ton of money on this and has the force of law blocking the truth about what the woman is actually aborting.
But compare abortion to capital punishment? Ok even after the jury trial for the crime, the trial for the punishment, the appeals to the courts, the appeals to the governor,... all of which is denied the child simply because his/her residence in still in the womb, even after all that - the criminal is still given a more humane death, a painless death as opposed to what often happens to the child during abortion. Don't give me any C*#P that the baby cannot feel pain - medical science has shown otherwise. And the date which the child can feel pain is being pushed earlier, and earlier into the pregnancy the more science understands the baby in the womb. I believe its generally accepted the baby feels pain as early as 20 weeks (just barely into the 2nd trimester), although some evidence now pushes that even younger.
Not being a liberal myself, I wouldn't know.:lol:
On that point I will defend Mr. Caliber.