Abortion and the Republicans debate

[Pabst]

Quote from bobcathy1:




Where did you get this??????? We wear leather, eat meat and do not own any pets. Bob is a born republican where I have a much more liberal stance in politics. We do not endorse any religion. We are both pro capital punishment as well a pro-choice.

I guess this is the tactic of all specious debaters.....to inject their own version of the truth. Tsk, tsk.

Did you ever notice how UGLY the right to lifers are? My god if that was not reason enough for abortion.

Cathy: Wasn't taking a shot at you! Just complimenting MS. But I'll tell you, come up to a liberal northern city and you'll see femi-nazi pro-choice radicals that are downright scary. If you think about it, truly ironic. One defends the right to life of the innocent un-born, and you become thought of as radical!

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from Maverick74:




I know people on the left like to avoid the main problem here which is abortion is about personal accountability period. End of story. If you choose to have sex then you know what the possible outcomes could be. In fact a 10 year old girl even knows because most public and private schools tell them this at a very early age. So if you as a woman are making the choice to have sex, then you should be personally responsible for the outcome period. You don't say after the fact, hell's bell's margaret, how did I get pregnant? I think you know how you got pregnant. You may have been hoping for a different outcome but the fact of the matter is you got the outcome you didn't want.

You say that if a woman has sex and contracts a pregnancy, she should not be allowed remedy for that condition.

Based on your logic, if a woman has sex and contracts a venereal disease, the she should not be allowed treatment for that illness.

In both cases, there is a remedy for the mistake that was previously made.

That question remains at the crux of the argument, is whether or not a fetus constitutes human life, and whether or not a woman has the right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



You say that if a woman has sex and contracts a pregnancy, she should not be allowed remedy for that condition.

Based on your logic, if a woman has sex and contracts a venereal disease, the she should not be allowed treatment for that illness.

In both cases, there is a remedy for the mistake that was previously made.

That question remains at the crux of the argument, is whether or not a fetus constitutes human life, and whether or not a woman has the right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy.

Was that meant as a joke? Certainly you are not comparing human life to a sexually transmitted disease.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



You say that if a woman has sex and contracts a pregnancy, she should not be allowed remedy for that condition.

Based on your logic, if a woman has sex and contracts a venereal disease, the she should not be allowed treatment for that illness.

In both cases, there is a remedy for the mistake that was previously made.

That question remains at the crux of the argument, is whether or not a fetus constitutes human life, and whether or not a woman has the right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy.

wrong and a very weak argument. a pregnancy creates life, another human being. disease is not compatible with human life. it is ill to compare the two.

no one knows for sure if the foetus is human life, there is doubt and it is because of this doubt, one must side with the possibility that it is human life since the alternative is murder.

best,

surfer

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from Maverick74:



Was that meant as a joke? Certainly you are not comparing human life to a sexually transmitted disease.

Your lack of objectivity is obvious. You argue from conclusion.

You are making the claim that a fetus is a human life.

That is an opinion, not fact in evidence, and of course is the crux of the argument that the pro-choice and pro-life debate is based on.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from marketsurfer:



wrong and a very weak argument. a pregnancy creates life, another human being. disease is not compatible with human life. it is ill to compare the two.

no one knows for sure if the foetus is human life, there is doubt and it is because of this doubt, one must side with the possibility that it is human life since the alternative is murder.

best,

surfer

Because there is doubt, or uncertainty, the woman should have the right to choose, the right to make the final decision.

To deny a woman that right to choose is unconstitutional, and that is why the Supreme Court ruled as they did.

The onus is on the right to lifers to provide proof that a fetus is a human being.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from bobcathy1:




Surf, I am surprised. I guess you are a vegetarian too?

If you consider how overpopulated our world is you might see my point. Is it better for them to die of starvation or to control the population? Is it better for a child to be wanted than born to a mother who is not willing?

Human life is not all that valuable lately. Too bad Saddam's mother did not avail herself of an abortion or Bin Laden's. That would have saved a lot of people.

Abortion has been around for centuries. Midwives used to do it before the physicians took over. Banning it would only bring back the coat hanger into fashion.

It's so funny to hear you say that because there was a time in my life when I said that too. In fact that was a huge part of my argument for being pro-choice. Of course back then I just wanted to f*ck everything that moved and if a girl got pregnant well then off to planned parenthood we went. Of course I grew out of that and learned how precious human life was and completely changed my ideals. But I think you are missing the point here. There are a million reasons to get an abortion ok. A million. There is one reason not to. The preservation of human life. Now if this where a math problem it would be easy to solve. Hell if we have a million reasons over here and one reason over there well golly, I guess the answer is obvious. But I believe that human life must be saved at all costs. What does all cost mean. It means what it says it means, all costs. I've heard all the excuses, I've heard all the reasons, and yes Virginia, many of them make perfect sence. However I stand by my belief that if human life in this world is not sacred, then nothing is. Then why are we here. Why are we alive? To trade and make money? To f*ck like minx? Or to create, preserve and appreciate the very existence that makes us human. No, I don't like nine year old girls as mothers, and no I don't want an inner city african american crackhead to be a mother. No I don't want our population to exceed 100 billion. This list could go on and on. The bottom line is accountability. There is a precedence in the democratic party to shy away from that. To be soft. To make excuses for people. I prefer to not make excuses for people.

And by the way, I don't think Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned and quite frankly I don't care if it is or isn't. We should be able to look inside of ourselves to know what is right and wrong. We don't need the government telling us that abortion is wrong. While I don't agree with it, and I do believe there is a lot we can do to prevent, It will be a cold cold day in hell before I support any presidential candidate that wants to use our tax dollars to support this atrocious crime. Because any president that does not value human life should not be the leader of the free world.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



Because there is doubt, or uncertainty, the woman should have the right to choose, the right to make the final decision.

To deny a woman that right to choose is unconstitutional, and that is why the Supreme Court ruled as they did.

The onus is on the right to lifers to provide proof that a fetus is a human being.

once again your understanding of this issue is lacking and, frankly, twisted. your same argument can be applied to many horrible state sponsored historic events . the foetus is genetically distinct from the mother. what more do you need ?

no one has the right to decide life or death for an innocent human. key word innocent. i believe strongly in the rights of the innocent individual for life--born or not born.

the supreme court has made several terrible decisons in the past , and time will prove this is another one.


the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the entity that would take away life. the prosecution has the burden of proof, the benefit of doubt is with the defense. i suggest you brush up on american legal concepts--if that is indeed where your hail from.

surfer:eek:

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from bobcathy1:



Haven't you heard that ANY birth control is not 100% reliable? And just sometimes you make a mistake and why compound it with an unwanted child?

Again my dear, back to accountability. You know I am going to keep repeating this word until you get it. You should be prepared for the consequences every time you have sex. Especially since you know that birth control is not 100% reliable. If you know this then why in the hell are you using that as an excuse. It's not as if you thought it were 100% reliable and suddenly your pregnant.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from marketsurfer:




once again your understanding of this issue is lacking and, frankly, twisted. your same argument can be applied to many horrible state sponsored historic events .

no one has the right to decide life or death for an innocent human. key word innocent. i believe strongly in the rights of the innocent individual for life--born or not born.

the supreme court has made several terrible decisions in the past , and time will prove this is another one.

surfer:eek:

You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't confuse that with fact.

Thus far, I have seen no understanding from you of any issue whatsoever, beyond emotion and opinion.

When fact is provided that a fetus is human life, not the "potential" for human life, then an argument based on fact can be made.

When you can make an argument based on fact, then perhaps you will find a dispassionate court to listen to that argument.