Pro-life and Pro-choice question

I would be against a national ban. Let states define murder and other issues with criminalizing killing people. I never stated nor do I believe all rights apply at fertilization. Clearly the unborn are not ready to exercise a great many of their eventual rights, as are the newly born.

Should the law remain as it is and permissive of killing babies as long as their heads are still not delivered? My cutoff is scientific and nonarbitrary: living and human. Is there some nonarbitrary alternative preferable? Or is arbitrary deemed superior in this instance?
 
So what about the pill?

conception can still occur, can it not?

It's just implantation that's prevented. So an "abortion" occurs via birth control pills.
 
I am against the use of early abortifacients as birth control. Blocking implantation is indirect abortion. It is more analogous to the ancient practice of infanticide by exposure on the rocks. I neither brought up murder nor thumped my chest. I presented reason based on science and have not seen it addressed. Who is being emotional? Just because my positions are disagreeable to one on a visceral level does not make them wrong or poorly thought-out. Sometimes, in fact, conventional thinking turns out to be poorly thought out.
 
sorry kgp, i wasn't talking about you. your posts are well thought out and reasoned, even if i disagree with your conclusions.
 
IRC - You're calling me a part of the "hard left" even though I am willing to discuss middle-ground and you are not? That's rich. What makes me "hard left"? Is it just because I disagree with you and anyone who disagrees with you must be a raving liberal?
 
IRC - I see that you have trouble with the concept that other people may have different opinions than you do. I have no problem with your opinion, I just do not agree with it
 
texasflag.gif


IRC and kgp...what stance do you take on the death penalty? I have to assume, since you are both hard core "pro life", that you are against it, as well as war, and self defense that could potentially cause the death of another human.












cow_rose.gif
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am personally against the death penalty - Not on religious grounds, but even one mistake is too many.

Self-defense? I wish more unborn babies were able to defend themselves. The fact that they can't breaks my heart

If you want to know more, just ask.
 
You make some correct guesses and some incorrect ones. I am against the death penalty and most wars. I am not against defending against attack. I never termed myself "hard core" anything-- you did. I explained why I believe our right not to be killed starts when our life does.

Wars are not truly analogous to interpersonal interactions but can largely be viewed from such an angle. Seen thus, WWII and the Wo1812 would be justifiably fought while many if not most others are more questionable.

Feel free to ask for any other explanation or clarification that is desired.
 
so you say I'm a part of the "hard left" and when pressed for evidence, you admit you have none. just what i thought.

if you want to know where i stand on any issue at all, let me know. i'd hate to have you waste your valuable time looking for evidence that doesn't exist.
 
i always try to look at motivation when i look at someones action. i dont think that love motivates someone to waterboard a terrorist while someone may have an abortion because they truly care about anohter human beings well being.

similarly, jesus did not categorically denounce killing when he claimed that he did not bring peace but a sword, and that a mans foe shall be they of his own household. at what point does it become okay to remove those who will never experience love? is it 18? is it 17? is it 16?
 
"And the winner is....What's this? It's a tie! kgp and Coelacanth. Game, Set, Match." Look closely, folks. It's all right there, in two posts.
cool.gif


Hey, Bernard. I want to molest your child. I mean, it's all about freedom, right? The age of consent it so arbitrary and capricious and all. Glad we're on the same page here. Good talk!
 
with a few exceptions, this has been a good exchange.

for those of you who take the absolute stance of life begins at conception and want to make it consistent with our legal system - who do you handle miscarriages? are these potential manslaughter cases? negligent homocides?

I am a leftist libertarian nut. however, I agree that abortion should be a last resort and that it should not be done callously. If you talk with women who have considered and made a choice either way with regard to terminating a pregnancy, you will find that their experiences run the gamut from great to terrible. Without exception, it was a big decision in their lives and one that should remain theirs.

I also think that we have plenty of children in this world and really don't need to create more laws so that we produce more children.
 
The miscarriage question is a good one. I do not have a great interest, nor on the whole do I believe should society, for the most part in criminalizing miscarriages. There are some awful cases that probably do merit it.

As for claiming that the position that life begins at fertilization (note the distinction in terminogy) is extreme, there may be much of nature one deems extreme. It does not make the facts any less facts. The question is not when life begins-- that is actually straightforward. The question is when is life protected.

EDIT quotation marks removed where not needed.
 
JohnnyM,First, I think you took this waaay too seriously. As for calling you a raving lunatic, please forgive only a poorly worded sentence. I should have said "Proving whether or not you are a raving lunatic...".That said, Let's get started.
We'll score on a sliding scale from 1 to 10. 1 will be ultraliberal and 10 will be ultraconservative; (left to right, get it?).

There are 20 questions, so at the end 20 will be Liberal and 200 will be Conservative. OK?

1. You said: "the Roe standards are ok, if not perfect." So, for those who would have to look it up, the Roe standards effectively divided a pregnancy into trimesters. States could not restrict abortions during the first trimester, could restrict abortions during the second except in cases where the mother's health was endangered and could absolutely restrict abortions during the third trimester. Therefore, JohnnyM does NOT believe on abortion on demand. That would give him a solid 5, except for his answer to Part 2. (But I'm not sure what it was!) I think it was "No, Yes, No,Yes, No" . So, for question 1, we'll give him a combined score of

4

2. Like your answer. Sensible, reasonable, logical. Give the man a

10

3. I actually agree with you regarding the Pledge. The words "Under God" were added during the Eisenhower Administration, (if I recall correctly, and I usually do ). I believe the Pledge works just fine without those words.

However, as to the second part, you couldn't be more wrong.

I quote the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, (this comes even before the preamble):

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And then the preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I would suggest that God played a fairly significant role in the principals that guided those men. I am also of the opinion that the founding fathers could be fairly judged as the greatest collection of intellectuals in the history of mankind. And they were predominantly Christians.

(Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, nor am I Jewish. I consider myself irreligious, but certainly not anti-religious.)

But there is no denying that the founding fathers were Christians and that Judeo-Christian values figured prominently into their actions, ideals and goals. (Don't they teach that in law school anymore?)

Even though we agree on the Pledge, it is not a conservative position, and based on your failure to conduct your own research into this nation's history, we'll have to give you a

3

4. Can't argue with that. A solid

10

5. Again, a lack of understanding of the issue, but your knee jerk reaction is sound, so, again, a solid

10 (Crap!)

6. You're a lawyer, (at least your profile claims you're a lawyer). Everyone else who read this knew I was discussing Eric Holder's decision to drop the charges in a flagrant case of voter intimidation, without ever giving a rationale, and despite the fact that case had already been won and the video evidence that everyone in America, (including you, I'd bet), has seen. Your pretend ignorance is assumed to mean that you cannot justify the action but find yourself unable to condemn the current administration even on so blatant a travishmockery. Sorry, but17. Sorry, but this is just more obfuscation. The reality, as anyone who pays the least attention will know, is that GP in a federal prison is muuuuch worse than anything done to anyone at Gitmo. Three prisoners were waterboarded. Three. I disagree that it was torture. You have bought into the meme and myth that Guantanamo has become. Score1 (And I had such hope just a few questions back!)8. Well at least you don't think Bush spent all day on September 10, 2001 laying dynamite. That's something I guess. We'll give you a nice, middle of the road5

9. Almost. This line: "...at the very least it was a willful misleading of the American public..." I am sure I don't need to go find all of the videos of Clinton(s), Gore, Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, et al insisting that Saddam was a mortal danger. You've seen them, I'm sure. But blaming Bush for staring a war for, (take your pick) : Halliburton, oil, revenge for Daddy, fun, etc, etc, etc., only gets you a

2

10. Reasonable. The "drones vs arrests" analogy is designed to note the ridiculous position that the Left has on prisoners at Guantanamo ("outrage") vs. the President's escalated drone attacks, ("utter silence"). One is uncomfortable, the other lethal. I don't object to either, necessarily, but the dichotomy is curious. Nevertheless, we'll give you a nice round

8

11. Meh.

5 (It was a throw-away question anyway.)

12. Because that is the position of the Hard Left. (Another throw-away question, but good answer.)

10

13. Please write your national representatives. TIA.

10

14. Cap and Trade is a tax and nothing more. It doesn't reduce emissions, they just cost more. And I have no reason to believe that this administration or the next one will do anything good with the taxes generated. What's more, it seems designed to hurt Texas specifically.

1

15. Please let the record show the deponent was Non-responsive.

1

16. Interestingly, today's Drudge headline was that a new CNN poll showed that the majority of Americans do not believe that Obama deserves a second term. Sorry, but apparently you are outside the mainstream, but since you qualified it as being only against McCain,

3

17. Van Jones was an avowed Communist. Not a McCarthy Commie, but an actual card-carrier.

1

18. I'll take that as a "Yes".

1

19. The money you've saved on gas you spent buying the car. And then some. Not only did you try composting, but you failed! At making dirt! I should take away points for that! Hemp clothing?

1

20. Tell Louie I said "HI".

10 (It was a silly question, so I'll give it to you for free.)

So, let's see what we have here.

I get 97. Just under mainstream. I'll admit I am pleasantly surprised. And as I noted in another post, I suspect you will slowly drift right as fatherhood and experience, (not to mention arthritis and retirement), begin to work on you.

Well, this has been fun, but I have arthritis and retirement to deal with, so Vaya con Dios and good luck with the end of that third trimester. I hope it goes smoothly and easily and is nothing but a joyous event for you and your family.

Oh, if you want to appeal your scores, please obtain the forms from your nearest Tea Party Headquarters.
wink.gif


Lastly, never forget the most important thing: ouSux.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top