abortion compromise

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Currently the politically powerful Christian Coalition is backing the growing movement of pro-life Christians, pushing the Bush administration to reverse Roe verses Wade.

The right to choose was given to women over thirty years ago. Taking away any civil liberty that others fought long and hard for, is politically speaking, a dangerous step backward.

The pro-lifers are adamant that abortion is murder and therefore a sin. But whether or not you determine abortion as murder is strictly a matter of religious interpretation. To millions of non Christians throughout the world, abortion is simply the postponement of a souls birth.

My purpose is not to advocate either belief but rather to point out the religious nature of this issue, and as such bars all government intervention.

Side stepping the obvious, Christians argue abortion is a matter of morality that begs government enforcement. Again I say, morality as perceived by Christians, may or may not match that of non-Christians. But how many organized religions are guilty of arrogance believing their beliefs are the only true ones. In reality there is no absolute truth only perspective.

If separation of church and state is to be observed and enforced by our government, then there can be no exceptions, period.

Pro life Christians and others have the right to oppose abortion but not at the expense of those who support choice. The right to chose means just that. The right to chose abortion and the right not to. Choice is the fundamental element of freedom, be it political or religious.

Judging from the posts, this discussion board seems overwhelmingly pro life. But a large Christian based viewership doesn't give the right to gang up against those who challenge you. "Might doesn't make right."

For the record, I hate abortion. It's been grossly misused by millions who fail to take responsibility for their own actions. This is the direct result of rampaging sexual decadence. But outlawing abortion won't heal our culture, and would serve only to satisfy those who oppose it.

Abortion reform which I believe to be the only by partisan solution to this war, must be two fold. First, the societal attitudes that presently condone sexual irresponsibility, must change. Second, much needed regulations on abortion must be enforced.

With a change of cultural tolerance and tighter restrictions, I believe the abortion problem will take care of itself. As originally intended, it will not be condoned for casual use.

I'm hopeful a compromise such as this, will end the abortion wars once and for all.




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Ok....but which regulations are you proposing? Which would you support?

"Sexual decadence" is also a term that might suggest a religious or cultural bias, too - perhaps "sexual irresponsibility" might be more apt.

(Since many people are promiscuous yet are able to completely avoid STDs, pregnancies and the like - they're not irresponsible by any means)

I agree that outlawing abortion will not solve anything, and it would be a gross miscarriage of justice if it were outlawed for religious reasons. I also agree that abortion is being misused by many women; I'm just not entirely sure how this should be rectified and/or restricted.

Where do we start?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I'm unclear as to why I should compromise something that's already legal and overwhelmingly supported.

Why should we walk down the slippery slope at all? Let the fringe come up here.

There was a time abortion was illegal. And compromises were made already to make the most people happy. This is behind us. It's done. It's over.

Roe IS a compromise. Actually one based on emanations of a right to privacy, so additional regulations and enforcement is not a compromise at all. It's just big brother. And quite unconstitutional.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Tinkleflower

Yes, sexual irresponsibility is a more apt term. But regardless whether decadence implies religious or cultural implications is beside the point. I never implied that government should have any part of the cultural changes necessary to promote new sexual ethics. Just like I said about abortion, government has no right to dictate personal morality. Unless of course it infringes upon the rights of others, such as stealing, murder or rape.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
Abortion reform which I believe to be the only by partisan solution to this war, must be two fold. First, the societal attitudes that presently condone sexual irresponsibility, must change.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.. I'm not for religious sexual morality being imposed on people but for kids to be taught facts- teaching them facts does not encourage them to have sex. This is a main gripe I have with the pro-life community. They are against abortion.. yet they are also against contraception and sex education..
which make me think they are not interested in 'saving babies' at all but policing [female] sexual behaviour. The facts alone should be enough to give kids [teaching from a young age] an idea of the seriousness of sex. Changing the culture generally though would be difficult as sex sells everything.

Second, much needed regulations on abortion must be enforced.

With a change of cultural tolerance and tighter restrictions, I believe the abortion problem will take care of itself. As originally intended, it will not be condoned for casual use.

I doubt many women use abortion casually.. though there may be some [female and male] who were casual in their approach in preventing pregnancy. The first thing should be suffient.. but if you enforce restrictions then what are the exceptions? Health? Mental illness? Poverty? Domestic abuse? Rape? It would be even more of an intrusion to privacy if abortionists are required lawfully to ask the circumstances of conception and why an exception should be made. Rape for instance.. would the woman have to prove she'd been raped to a judge to get a court order? That would require charging and finding someone guilty of it.. and since only 1% of all rape charges end in convictions thats a tough ask on a woman who only has a window of a couple of weeks to prove her pregnacy resulted from rape. Wouldn't be practical or fair.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I frankly think that BOTH sides need to stand up and start yelling at men "USE A CONDOM!!!! EVERY TIME!!!!"

It takes a month or more for birth control pills to work for a woman. Some women can't take them. But every single guy in the world can use a condom.

So how about a little promoting the positve from BOTH sides -- urge men and boys to start wearing condoms and start wearing them NOW!

It's the Manly Thing To Do.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Pro choice does Byrd!

Contraception should even be taught in school and readily available much like newly federally funded abstinence only bible thumping.

But intelligent prevention of unwanted pregnancies (and aboriton) is an anti-Christian agenda seeking to undermine our nation's moral fiber.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Abortion is an issue because is tag to women choices, if it was a man choice it would never be considered an issue.

Politics are involve because religion issues bring attention and voters, if it wasn't for that not politician will devote their time to it.

Men has for ages tried to control their sexuality and the women's bodies but until this day if is something that women still have that not man will ever be able to even buy it in the black market is an "UTERUS"

So get over it and start taking responsibility for the urges and start using condoms.

I am sick and tired of having men telling me what to do with my private parts.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
You are sick of telling men tyou don't have the right to murder, you mean.
Would it make you feel better if the many, many women who know the difference between right and wrong, murder and life, to tell you? Don't just take my word for it.

Makes no difference. It is necessary that we have abortion, abortion on demand, and it must be paid for by the government! We must nurture the culture of death, and we must get the nation to take it for granted that life is cheap; even the most precious among us is nothing more than meaningless tissue. The government must have the say-so, and pay for it, even. That way, "they" control it. Eventually, they'll control you, but don't think about that right now.
While we are murdering the most precious among us for our own selfish desires, why not start considering offing the elderly? They contribute nothing and are only a drain on the system. The corporations don't need them, so that is the next logical step. Great idea, right? Efficiency! The next evolutionary change in Servant Man's progress toward his part in the brave new world!

I see their educational goals have been met, in spades, as well as their intense societal reengineering in the last few decades. For those who read outlaw history books and see what is going on, and how so many have accepted the mental manipulation, it is purely horrifying!

NURSE! Nurse? I need my medication, and I need it NOW!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You are sick of telling men tyou don't have the right to murder, you mean.


According to the law, it's not murder. Shouldn't that be the end of it?



It is necessary that we have abortion, abortion on demand, and it must be paid for by the government! We must nurture the culture of death...


With the greatest of respect, Thomas, this is nothing but an emotional cheap-shot. Nobody - nobody - is advocating abortion on demand; or that it must be made available to everyone for every reason.

Culture of death? There, you might have a point. Our wonderful culture is where we see a depressingly unwavering support for the death penalty, where we glorify casualties of war, and where we seem to be fine nurturing the laissez-faire attitude about the 12,000 or so murders our kids see (on average) on TV by the time they reach adulthood. Yes, there's a culture of death. But it's got nothing to do with abortion.

Out of curiousity, what are your feelings on terminations which occur because continuing the pregnancy would invariably put the mother's life at risk? Or those involving an anencephalic fetus, for example?


.
While we are murdering the most precious among us for our own selfish desires, why not start considering offing the elderly? They contribute nothing and are only a drain on the system.


Again, this is an emotional morality play. It's not murder - the law has specifically provided for the termination of a pregnancy, and whether or not you or I like it, that's the reality of the situation.

And we both know there's a world of difference between a 6 week old fetus and a 60 year old guy. Please, don't pretend there's no difference there.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Thomas as usual never shows anything about men responsibility in the issue but rather blame women for the evils of man and abortion.

Taken in consideration that it takes an ovum and a sperm to make a fetus I will said that men should start thinking with the head they got in their shoulders and stop blaming women for murder.

Is nice to deep around and then scream bloody murder.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Not according to the law, but according to an activist Supreme court. There is quite a difference.

Murder is murder, no matter what an activist Supreme Court, with intentions of furthering an agenda to destroy the nation's moral fabric, says.

No emoional cheap shot, Dearie, as that is something that has been mentioned, time and again. Why should it be just for those who can afford it, they say? It's a Woman's health issue", right? Why ,that fetus (Latin for unborn baby) is like a cancer or a virus, and why should only the ones with money be able to get it removed?

You try and degrade what I say by calling it "emotional morality", that's pretty cool! They've taught you well! Anotehr thing to call morality is archaic, old fashioned and passe. Don't forget to mention the "You can't legislate morality" thing (although that is what a "law" is; otherwise it is a commercial statute for the purpose of regulation).

So, you say you know the difference between a baby with an individual heratbeat and an old man? LOL! Really? Before their re-education was started, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all! The difference is, you bought off on their mental manipulation and I haven't. Their is more to come, they aren't finished by a long shot.

But you're doing well. Don't struggle, just go wit hthe flow. It'll be less painful that way, and if you never think about it, you won't have to have any of those nasty and painful inner struggles! As for me, it's too late.
NURSE!! Where's my MEDS!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Not according to the law, but according to an activist Supreme court. There is quite a difference.


Uh - which one is it going to be then? The Supreme Court is part of the Justice system, is it not? They're not following the law? Or would they be only doing so if their decisions reflected your personal beliefs?



Murder is murder, no matter what an activist Supreme Court, with intentions of furthering an agenda to destroy the nation's moral fabric, says.


Apparently "the law" disagrees with you. *shrug*



No emoional cheap shot, Dearie, as that is something that has been mentioned, time and again. Why should it be just for those who can afford it, they say? It's a Woman's health issue", right? Why ,that fetus (Latin for unborn baby) is like a cancer or a virus, and why should only the ones with money be able to get it removed?


A) Fetus is literally "young one". NOT "unborn baby". You might see that as a semantic difference, but it's important to be accurate anyway.

B) That's your argument? That only the rich have access to the service? I'm not sure what you're actually getting at here.



You try and degrade what I say by calling it "emotional morality", that's pretty cool! They've taught you well!


Sigh. No, Thomas, it's not. I called it an "emotional morality play". Please don't take words out of context. I can clarify further, if you wish?



So, you say you know the difference between a baby with an individual heratbeat and an old man? LOL! Really? Before their re-education was started, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all!


Are you telling me you can't see the difference between a clump of cells that happens to be capable of a biological function, and an old man?!



But you're doing well. Don't struggle, just go wit hthe flow. It'll be less painful that way, and if you never think about it, you won't have to have any of those nasty and painful inner struggles! As for me, it's too late.
NURSE!! Where's my MEDS!!!!!!




You know, for a SuperMod, you really do get away with a lot of overboard sarcasm and condescension.

You're unable to put yourself in anyone else's position on this subject, and I can understand that. There are many, many things I don't know, and can't comment on as I've simply never had experience. I don't blame you for that - you're not female, obviously, and there are some things that you just cannot understand on an intimate level...just as I can never understand what it is to have testicular cancer.

But can't you please lose the patronizing attitude?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

But you're doing well. Don't struggle, just go wit hthe flow. It'll be less painful that way, and if you never think about it, you won't have to have any of those nasty and painful inner struggles! As for me, it's too late.
NURSE!! Where's my MEDS!!!!!!


You need some prozac Thomas,for the way you scream and wail it looks like you have been through child bearing yourself.

It sounds fanatical I am starting to worry about you.


Convictions are good but when they can not be kept civil then somebody needs to cool down.


A women is not incubator and her body don't belong to anybody but herself, is her given right to carry a pregnancy to term or terminate it plain and simple specially when is not man taking the responsibility as usual because is not the man's fault but the "evil woman" after all the bible said so, right?

Deal with it.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
There will never be an end to the abortion debate. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates have strong convictions. So why can't we just agree to disagree? Abortion is already legal. PC are free to utilize abortion and PL are free not to.

Morality is a matter of personal choice. So why must some people try to force their beliefs on others? I belief it's immoral to eat animals. Does that give me the right to try and force others not to? Hardly.

Lets all get over it and move on. Instead, we could use some of that energy wasted on arguing, to help the unwanted children who are born?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
dollmaster

It's not so much that abortion is legal - Roe v Wade simply established that laws against abortion violated the woman's constitutional right to privacy.

If I'm understanding correctly (and I'm just a humble Brit, so forgive me if I get this wrong), the ambiguity surrounds two issues; the first being that the Constitution doesn't explicitly provide for a right to privacy, and the second surrounding the question of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person and would thus be afforded the same rights as any other person.

The first is a very grey area. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has indeed stated several times that the Constitution does contain prenumbras which grant the right to privacy against government intrusion (ahem...Patriot Act...hmmmm), and the right to privacy in certain civil liberties cases.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the assumed right to privacy doesn't exist in certain instances - the most obvious example currently being that what you throw in your trash no longer has any expectation of privacy. So it's up for grabs - obviously as the Constitution makes no explicit allowance, it's become very subjective.

The second issue is much more difficult to decide from a legal standpoint, it seems - there are now laws which make violently causing harm to a fetus illegal (in the case of Scott Peterson, who was found guilty of murdering their unborn baby)...though "Laci and Conner's Law" explicitly excluded abortion, it's not unreasonable to predict that it's going to draw trouble from both sides in the future.

To quote John Kerry, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy".

He has a jolly valid point there. Can we seriously expect to do both?

Anyway, with the resignation of O'Connor, and the death of Rehnquist, Roe v Wade is inevitably going to be revisited in the Supreme Court.

I can only hope that religion doesn't become the basis of the decision.

(I also hope that this actually makes sense....)





top topics
 
0

log in

join