For Abortion or against it? - Page 11

onlyoneplanet · 08-15-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axiom

OOP--The life cycle begins when the sperm hits the egg. What I'm saying is this: be revolutionary, it's the American way isn't it? People disregard the law when they think something needs to get done, whether it's outlawed or not. Women should have the option of healthy abortion, if that becomes illegal, many women will be in a situation that's [sometimes unbearably] hard to be in.

[Axiom] Whoa..so if I disreagrd the law and violate your rights because I need or want something that is o.k.?

OOP--Should we marginalize pro-choice women who would consider abortion just for the people out there who think it's wrong?

[Axiom] We should do the right things because they are the right things to do. What you fail to realize is that the Constitution is not so flawed as you may think...what is flawed is trying to twist it into something it is not, then it gets flawed.

OOP--I realize the Constitution is very black & white, and that's exactly why I believe it's so flawed, it's either wrong or it's right--and that in itself, I believe, is wrong. Life is grey area; the majority can't play God.

[Axiom] No life is pretty black and white, for every action there is a consequence(s). Attempting to nullify everything by placing it into some grey area will definately have a consequence.

OOP--But hey, even if it is illegal, there's always herbal abortion. So I'll let you have this one. But, the fact is that everyone is different; arguing the Constitution becomes null & void when people realize their potential as human beings. No one is bound by laws, they're completely fictitious in a truly free world. It's called autonomy.

[Axiom] No that is called anarchy. Attempting to put a pretty dress on it doesn't make it a pretty baby, it just makes it an ugly baby with a pretty dress. Save the pretty dresses for the pretty babies.

Though I would totally disagree with your evaluation on life, I do appreciate you sharing your view-points.

1. If I was a fetus with no understanding of 'rights' or even pain & pleasure/life & death, then to tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't care that much if you violated my rights. But hey, I'm not a fetus, so don't violate my rights or I'll shoot you.

2. The more I think about this, the more I see myself turning anti-clinical abortion, but not necessarily anti-abortion. I personally would like to see abortion clinics eliminated, BUT I would like to see women educating themselves on herbal abortion. Like promoting safe sex instead of telling teenagers to simply not have sex.

What you don't realize is that--in your eyes--the Constitution is not as flawed as I may think. Let me say that instead of seeing people try to twist the Constitution into something it isn't, maybe it's simply a matter of how each individual interprets it; hell, you could most definately say that the different branches of Christianity twisted to Bible into something it isn't, but the fact that there are so many different ways to interpret it rules out the idea that people are twisting it. In reality, whatever it was to begin with is long gone.

3. To say life is black and white is over-simplifying things. To open up the grey area leaves you with more options; life is the biggest mystery in the universe, it can't be regulated and it shouldn't be regulated. Yes, actions have consequences, and it's continuous. Call it karma, call it circular thought, whatever you want, but black doesn't come back to white without the grey area!

4. If autonomy is the quality or state of being independant, free, or self-directing, then I don't see how I'm wrong in saying no one is bound by laws in a truly free world and calling it autonomy. But there's no doubt that you're correct in calling it anarchy. Anarchy's no ugly baby though; wikipedia can explain it more thoroughly than I can, but definately read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Axiom · 08-15-2005, 06:51 PM

Sorry friend you have a right to your views, and I have mine. Mine are Constitutionally based not religously based, much to the dismay of Tadpole I am sure. What Christ's carpentry abilities ever were, did not play reference in my discussion. Sorry.

OOP, wikpedia is not a reference that would change my opinion. Something more defined than an ever constant changing wikpedia. Anyway, being a man of the cloth (camoflauge that is), anarchy doesn't fit into my train of thought what-so-ever. You know how us evil industrial military complex types are?

Back to my train of thought; while you have no faith or should I say no initative (?) in that wonderful gift given to us by our Founding Fathers to make, what was considered impossible over 200 years ago, it work as it should, then we just won't see eye-to-eye.

No offense friend, but count yourself lucky there are people out there laying it on the line for that document, so you may contemplate just what shade of grey you'll enjoy today. Me I'll stick to the black and white, it has been way to rewarding for me and my family so far.

Cheers,
Axiom

onlyoneplanet · 08-15-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axiom

Sorry friend you have a right to your views, and I have mine. Mine are Constitutionally based not religously based, much to the dismay of Tadpole I am sure. What Christ's carpentry abilities ever were, did not play reference in my discussion. Sorry.

OOP, wikpedia is not a reference that would change my opinion. Something more defined than an ever constant changing wikpedia. Anyway, being a man of the cloth (camoflauge that is), anarchy doesn't fit into my train of thought what-so-ever. You know how us evil industrial military complex types are?

Back to my train of thought; while you have no faith or should I say no initative (?) in that wonderful gift given to us by our Founding Fathers to make, what was considered impossible over 200 years ago, it work as it should, then we just won't see eye-to-eye.

No offense friend, but count yourself lucky there are people out there laying it on the line for that document, so you may contemplate just what shade of grey you'll enjoy today. Me I'll stick to the black and white, it has been way to rewarding for me and my family so far.

Cheers,
Axiom

I do consider myself lucky, and I have absolutely no problem with anyone who fights for what they love, even if I do disagree with their cause.

Axiom · 08-16-2005, 10:07 AM

Just a couple of more statements/questions:

OOP--If I was a fetus with no understanding of 'rights' or even pain & pleasure/life & death, then to tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't care that much if you violated my rights. But hey, I'm not a fetus, so don't violate my rights or I'll shoot you.

Axiom--Well good on you if you did shoot me for it. But if a mentally handicapped person incapable of understanding their rights, or not capabale of cognitive thought to the depth you or I have, has their rights violated, then it is o.k.? Just curious.

OOP--Let me say that instead of seeing people try to twist the Constitution into something it isn't, maybe it's simply a matter of how each individual interprets it; hell, you could most definately say that the different branches of Christianity twisted to Bible into something it isn't, but the fact that there are so many different ways to interpret it rules out the idea that people are twisting it.

Axiom--The Founding Fathers were very thurough in their intent when they wrote the Constitution, much of that intent can be read in the Federalist Papers, letters, and elsewhere. A Judge is not empowered to place his/her own twist or interpretation on the law, they are empowered to uphold the intent of the law, therefore Justices like Kennedy and Ginsburg in truth have no excuse for their actions other than they are either idiots or anti-american (Harsh? Not harsh enough!)

As for the twisting of the Bible, it really doesn't matter, one can always choose a different church if they disagree. It is not as simple as that when we have Judges legislating law from the bench. And the twisting of the Bible has no effect on me or my rights, there is this beautiful thing within the Constitution called the First Amendment.

onlyoneplanet · 08-16-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axiom

Just a couple of more statements/questions:

OOP--If I was a fetus with no understanding of 'rights' or even pain & pleasure/life & death, then to tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't care that much if you violated my rights. But hey, I'm not a fetus, so don't violate my rights or I'll shoot you.

Axiom--Well good on you if you did shoot me for it. But if a mentally handicapped person incapable of understanding their rights, or not capabale of cognitive thought to the depth you or I have, has their rights violated, then it is o.k.? Just curious.

OOP--Let me say that instead of seeing people try to twist the Constitution into something it isn't, maybe it's simply a matter of how each individual interprets it; hell, you could most definately say that the different branches of Christianity twisted to Bible into something it isn't, but the fact that there are so many different ways to interpret it rules out the idea that people are twisting it.

Axiom--The Founding Fathers were very thurough in their intent when they wrote the Constitution, much of that intent can be read in the Federalist Papers, letters, and elsewhere. A Judge is not empowered to place his/her own twist or interpretation on the law, they are empowered to uphold the intent of the law, therefore Justices like Kennedy and Ginsburg in truth have no excuse for their actions other than they are either idiots or anti-american (Harsh? Not harsh enough!)

As for the twisting of the Bible, it really doesn't matter, one can always choose a different church if they disagree. It is not as simple as that when we have Judges legislating law from the bench. And the twisting of the Bible has no effect on me or my rights, there is this beautiful thing within the Constitution called the First Amendment.

I'm quite sure most mentally incapable have a sense of pain & pleasure, aside from that, they're grown human beings with a functioning body where as a fetus is like a worm.. But, like in the case of Terry Schiavo, I say leave it up to the family to decide, not Mr. Bush. It isn't his issue, and it's no one elses' issue but the family's.

I wonder if the Founding Fathers had fetus' rights in mind while they wrote the Constitution. I think interpretation of the Constitution is required when it comes to fetus' rights. An honest question: did they have abortion back then?

tadpole256 · 08-16-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlyoneplanet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axiom

Just a couple of more statements/questions:

OOP--If I was a fetus with no understanding of 'rights' or even pain & pleasure/life & death, then to tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't care that much if you violated my rights. But hey, I'm not a fetus, so don't violate my rights or I'll shoot you.

Axiom--Well good on you if you did shoot me for it. But if a mentally handicapped person incapable of understanding their rights, or not capabale of cognitive thought to the depth you or I have, has their rights violated, then it is o.k.? Just curious.

OOP--Let me say that instead of seeing people try to twist the Constitution into something it isn't, maybe it's simply a matter of how each individual interprets it; hell, you could most definately say that the different branches of Christianity twisted to Bible into something it isn't, but the fact that there are so many different ways to interpret it rules out the idea that people are twisting it.

Axiom--The Founding Fathers were very thurough in their intent when they wrote the Constitution, much of that intent can be read in the Federalist Papers, letters, and elsewhere. A Judge is not empowered to place his/her own twist or interpretation on the law, they are empowered to uphold the intent of the law, therefore Justices like Kennedy and Ginsburg in truth have no excuse for their actions other than they are either idiots or anti-american (Harsh? Not harsh enough!)

As for the twisting of the Bible, it really doesn't matter, one can always choose a different church if they disagree. It is not as simple as that when we have Judges legislating law from the bench. And the twisting of the Bible has no effect on me or my rights, there is this beautiful thing within the Constitution called the First Amendment.

I'm quite sure most mentally incapable have a sense of pain & pleasure, aside from that, they're grown human beings with a functioning body where as a fetus is like a worm.. But, like in the case of Terry Schiavo, I say leave it up to the family to decide, not Mr. Bush. It isn't his issue, and it's no one elses' issue but the family's.

I wonder if the Founding Fathers had fetus' rights in mind while they wrote the Constitution. I think interpretation of the Constitution is required when it comes to fetus' rights. An honest question: did they have abortion back then?

I do not think they had fetal rights in mind. And I am sure there were methods of abortion back then, if nothing else, a good knee to the gut works wonders... {I am not condoning such action}

Nebraskaboy · 08-16-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlyoneplanet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axiom

Just a couple of more statements/questions:

OOP--If I was a fetus with no understanding of 'rights' or even pain & pleasure/life & death, then to tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't care that much if you violated my rights. But hey, I'm not a fetus, so don't violate my rights or I'll shoot you.

Axiom--Well good on you if you did shoot me for it. But if a mentally handicapped person incapable of understanding their rights, or not capabale of cognitive thought to the depth you or I have, has their rights violated, then it is o.k.? Just curious.

OOP--Let me say that instead of seeing people try to twist the Constitution into something it isn't, maybe it's simply a matter of how each individual interprets it; hell, you could most definately say that the different branches of Christianity twisted to Bible into something it isn't, but the fact that there are so many different ways to interpret it rules out the idea that people are twisting it.

Axiom--The Founding Fathers were very thurough in their intent when they wrote the Constitution, much of that intent can be read in the Federalist Papers, letters, and elsewhere. A Judge is not empowered to place his/her own twist or interpretation on the law, they are empowered to uphold the intent of the law, therefore Justices like Kennedy and Ginsburg in truth have no excuse for their actions other than they are either idiots or anti-american (Harsh? Not harsh enough!)

As for the twisting of the Bible, it really doesn't matter, one can always choose a different church if they disagree. It is not as simple as that when we have Judges legislating law from the bench. And the twisting of the Bible has no effect on me or my rights, there is this beautiful thing within the Constitution called the First Amendment.

I'm quite sure most mentally incapable have a sense of pain & pleasure, aside from that, they're grown human beings with a functioning body where as a fetus is like a worm.. But, like in the case of Terry Schiavo, I say leave it up to the family to decide, not Mr. Bush. It isn't his issue, and it's no one elses' issue but the family's.

I wonder if the Founding Fathers had fetus' rights in mind while they wrote the Constitution. I think interpretation of the Constitution is required when it comes to fetus' rights. An honest question: did they have abortion back then?

Wait, did they have abortions back then? I don't know if that is a trick question, or if you actually know the answer to that one.

tadpole256 · 08-16-2005, 11:26 PM

In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy.

Through the efforts primarily of physicians, the American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions in the US had been outlawed by 1900.

Illegal abortions were still frequent, though they became less frequent during the reign of the Comstock Law which essentially banned birth control information and devices.

Some early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, wrote against abortion. They opposed abortion which at the time was an unsafe medical procedure for women, endangering their health and life. These feminists believed that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion.

tadpole256 · 08-16-2005, 11:28 PM

Apparently Abortions have been available, and debated since the early 300's AD...

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/no...ondecision.htm

Tabris · 08-17-2005, 08:47 AM

and back in the 300s, I'm sure most of the STD's that we have no weren't around (or were fairly isolated). I wouldn't let any of my wives abort, though. Kids are a source of boasting "Yes, I have 40 kids and 5 wives". That just screams "Holy @#$% this guy is birthing an army" or something to that extent.

Alas, in this day kids have become a commodity. Too many people see kids as an inconvenience, and wait till they're almost 40 to have kids, BUT BUT then wonder why their kids are so o fften stillborn or have some sort of disorder. Hm, don't wait so long? Rape and Pillage the villages while you're young and virile.

View Poll Results: For Abortion or Against Abortion?
For Abortion	26	59.09%
Against Abortion	18	40.91%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode