You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If Abortion is murder, why would the right wingers allow exceptions?
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Anyone catch Cavuto? There was some "Men's rights" proponent on there arguing for "Mens' Right To Choose".
The argument goes that if a man doesn't want the women to have his child, he shouldn't be liable for child support payments if she goes ahead and has it. Even though I'm pro-life, if you're going to have abortions, wouldn't this be the fair way to do it? If a woman shouldn't be unfairly saddled with the burden of a child she doesn't want, why should a man?
The argument goes that if a man doesn't want the women to have his child, he shouldn't be liable for child support payments if she goes ahead and has it. Even though I'm pro-life, if you're going to have abortions, wouldn't this be the fair way to do it? If a woman shouldn't be unfairly saddled with the burden of a child she doesn't want, why should a man?
Quote from spect8or:
Anyone catch Cavuto? There was some "Men's rights" proponent on there arguing for "Mens' Right To Choose".
The argument goes that if a man doesn't want the women to have his child, he shouldn't be liable for child support payments if she goes ahead and has it. Even though I'm pro-life, if you're going to have abortions, wouldn't this be the fair way to do it? If a woman shouldn't be unfairly saddled with the burden of a child she doesn't want, why should a man?
The legal argument is that the child, once born, is an innocent, and should not be punished for either/both of the parents' decisions -- bad or good.
Prior to birth, however, only the woman's and the embryo's/fetus'/child's rights are at issue.
Quote from kjkent1:
The legal argument is that the child, once born, is an innocent, and should not be punished for either/both of the parents' decisions -- bad or good.
Prior to birth, however, only the woman's and the embryo's/fetus'/child's rights are at issue.
Obviously this advocate is arguing for a change in legislation, but thanks for your legal clarifcation anyway.
Just out of interest, what do you think about his position? Or was the above your clever way of stating it?
ok, so now the catholics are on record opposing contraceptives and abortion and adoption unless its done exactly as they want it done. frigging closed minded idiots.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...options_over_issue_involving_gays_1142014098/
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays
By Associated Press | March 10, 2006
BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality.
"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...options_over_issue_involving_gays_1142014098/
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays
By Associated Press | March 10, 2006
BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality.
"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.
Quote from vhehn:
ok, so now the catholics are on record opposing contraceptives and abortion and adoption unless its done exactly as they want it done. frigging closed minded idiots.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...options_over_issue_involving_gays_1142014098/
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays
By Associated Press | March 10, 2006
BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality.
"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.
how tolerant of you.
some anti abortion people would allow an abortion when the life of the mother is threatened on logically solid ground.
for those of you who have not taken the time to think the argument through I will provide the basis. Although this is not necesarily my argument.
Not all homicide is illegal. One may kill in protection of life such as self defense.
So the argument would be if the life of the mother is in danger you may take the necesary steps to save her life
Now to get philosophical. The catholic church I believe would say that if you are taking steps to save the life of the mother and the fetus dies that is o.k. but you should not just kill the fetus.
However, that is not what my take on the abortion law says. It says you could kill the potential citizen to save the life of the mother.
Seems pretty liberal to me don't you think.
for those of you who have not taken the time to think the argument through I will provide the basis. Although this is not necesarily my argument.
Not all homicide is illegal. One may kill in protection of life such as self defense.
So the argument would be if the life of the mother is in danger you may take the necesary steps to save her life
Now to get philosophical. The catholic church I believe would say that if you are taking steps to save the life of the mother and the fetus dies that is o.k. but you should not just kill the fetus.
However, that is not what my take on the abortion law says. It says you could kill the potential citizen to save the life of the mother.
Seems pretty liberal to me don't you think.
Nice thoughts, Dan.
Quote from spect8or:
Well, in a society that has tossed out all standards, yes, the distinction does seem bizarre.
And that's why I applaud this senator Napoli. Not so much for apparently unprincipled exception he makes - I'd need to look into it more, but for the moment it appears unprincipled - but for having the guts to speak up for virtue.
I remember hearing as a kid, this must have been some 20 years ago, of some Australian politician that had remarked raping a nun was a worse offense than raping a prostitute. Naturally the media jumped down his throat and I think he ended up withdrawing his remarks. It seemed obvious to me then that he was right and I couldn't really understand the reaction. Of course, I didn't have a context to place it all in. It's all very clear now, though.