Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

reply to post by Maslo


why would you intervene if you weren't restoring something?

Just a question. Is there a situation of intervention where you are not restoring some "thing" that you deem necessary to restore?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo

 

why would you intervene if you weren't restoring something?

Just a question. Is there a situation of intervention where you are not restoring some "thing" that you deem necessary to restore?

What if the goal of the intervention never existed in the past? Then its not "restoration" to a previous state.

I just dont see why all intervention must be restoration. Its not in the definition. You are making up the meaning of words.

We can substitute intervention with synonyms like "interference" if you dont understand the term.

For anyone who thinks that banning abortion will stop the practice I implore you to google 'Kermit Gosnell' who ran an illegal backroom abortion 'clinic'.

Or look up the picture and story of 'Geraldine Santoro' who died on the floor of a hotel room after a do-it-yourself abortion attempt.

Geraldine Santoro *GRAPHIC PICTURE*

If we revert to the outdated idea that early term abortion is murder then we'll find that it will cost the lives of many women. I think it would be a shame to let the religious right in the US impress its beliefs upon everyone in the country. If you don't support abortion, then refrain from having one. But don't try to govern the bodies of others under the guise of 'moral superiority'.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
It would be ideal if every women who had sex...
...wanted to have a baby to the person she has sex with...
...or that she had the financial. emotional, spiritual ability to raise, nurture it...
...but the reality is this is not always the case.

I think that while an embryo is part of and dependant on the womens body...
...it is for her alone to decide.

I think the problem with this debate is that it is all about what another person should do...
...but the only question is 'what would I do if the embryo was in me'...
...men are by nature eliminated from asking that question...
...only a women can ask that question...
...and only the women in whose body the embryo resides can ask and answer that question.

edit on 27/1/12 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)

No I think men should play a role, after all, it is not the woman alone that comes up with the baby, it does take two. And it takes from both parties. Although the child may grow inside the woman, I think it is unequal thinking to say it is all the womans choice, and if we really want equality for all, this is not equality. There was a story about a guy who got a girl pregnant. The girl had told the guy, that for medical reasons, she could not get pregnant. After getting pregnant the woman decided to keep the baby, as the guy was planning on leaving, and the woman had no source of income. She told the guy about the baby, who was surprised due to the fact of her supposed medical inability. She then goes and gets direct payments from the guys employer for the life of the baby, who the guy had no say in whether they kept it or not. This is incrediblly wrong and selfish, and unequal. I laugh at all the peoples rights groups who lie when they are saying they are fighting for equality for all.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

I don't see why that's true.

If you're a male rapist, you should be castrated. Simple as that. Should women be out from such a question as that? I don't see why.

It's simple. If the population says that an undeniable case of rape should be punished with castration, let it be done. If a population says that abortion is murder and should be banned, let it be done.

edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

I think individual people are more important than nameless 'populations'.

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by troubleshooter
It would be ideal if every women who had sex...
...wanted to have a baby to the person she has sex with...
...or that she had the financial. emotional, spiritual ability to raise, nurture it...
...but the reality is this is not always the case.

I think that while an embryo is part of and dependant on the womens body...
...it is for her alone to decide.

I think the problem with this debate is that it is all about what another person should do...
...but the only question is 'what would I do if the embryo was in me'...
...men are by nature eliminated from asking that question...
...only a women can ask that question...
...and only the women in whose body the embryo resides can ask and answer that question.

edit on 27/1/12 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)

No I think men should play a role, after all, it is not the woman alone that comes up with the baby, it does take two. And it takes from both parties. Although the child may grow inside the woman, I think it is unequal thinking to say it is all the womans choice, and if we really want equality for all, this is not equality. There was a story about a guy who got a girl pregnant. The girl had told the guy, that for medical reasons, she could not get pregnant. After getting pregnant the woman decided to keep the baby, as the guy was planning on leaving, and the woman had no source of income. She told the guy about the baby, who was surprised due to the fact of her supposed medical inability. She then goes and gets direct payments from the guys employer for the life of the baby, who the guy had no say in whether they kept it or not. This is incrediblly wrong and selfish, and unequal. I laugh at all the peoples rights groups who lie when they are saying they are fighting for equality for all.

I think the man should only be included if invited in by the women...
...in whatever capacity she decides, to consult, support emotionally or financially...
...as in your example he was...
...but it still remains that while an embryo is part of and dependant on a womans body it is her decision.

Humans have very little respect for all life.
and especially humans.
humans do climbs that are so evil that we as a
race come very close to being unrecoverable.

only man and no other animal.
could do so vile and sick things to its own child.
so much more that I dont wont to think on it...

and You worry over a baby before it is born.
only after a baby is born will a soul be born.
would you say a sperm is a living thing?
fighting for life? So! lets save ALL the sperms !

Save your slef first. then the rest of man kind.

reply to post by Maslo

What if the goal of the intervention never existed in the past? Then its not "restoration" to a previous state.

Then you would not be intervening.

I just dont see why all intervention must be restoration. Its not in the definition. You are making up the meaning of words.

Intervention is a type of restoration. Not all restoration is intervention.

I invite you to find an example of intervention occurring without restoration of something as the goal.

We can substitute intervention with synonyms like "interference" if you dont understand the term.

Intervention is usually positive. Interference is usually negative. Not the same connotation. Interference can mean a wide variety of things. Intervention is a very simple thing. To modify or change something to your own goals. IE, restore something.

(FYI, this is one of those irrelevant things you do to derail the main point because you know you already lost the main point)

reply to post by troubleshooter


Then why would populations of males be barred from the decision?

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Dumping off your responsibility is never the most responsible choice.

Dumping off the responsibility would be delivering the child and then giving it away, not abortion. Abortion ends responsibility, not dumps it on someone other.


The same logic.

If you new how many people are going to 3rd world countries to get kids out of orphanages because the "wait period" for a newborn in this country is 15 plus years you would understand what a bogus argument that really is.

Which is good. This way they are compelled to take care of the abandoned children that are already born and would otherwise not have a good life, instead of forcing other women to make more children for them.

There is enough abandoned children on this Earth to adopt. No need force women to make new unwanted babies and displace those 3rd world kids, just because some people want their precious new child to be white.

edit on 27/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Yes, if you are wealthy you can afford the expense of foreign adoptions. Many people can't swing the cost of foreign adoptions. Intercountry agency fees for adoptions can run for 8, 000 to 30,000 dollars, not to mention the foreign fees involved.
statistics.adoption.com...
Adoption and abortion really are two separate topics, neither one should be used to justify the other.

instead of forcing other women to make more children for them.

Unless a victim of rape, nobody forces women to make new unwanted babies and certainly no one should be forcing her to destroy them either. Many women have been pressured into abortions by boyfriends and parents.

reply to post by relpobre000


Why if we are pro life are we always referred to as the "religious right"? So many people who are pro choice
tend to hide behind this guise........No, we are not people with moral superiority, just people with morals period.


Pax

reply to post by Gorman91


Enough of this.
I am not a native english speaker, so could any native speaker confirm or deny that "intervention" always means "restoration"? It certainly does not in my language. Intervention is synonymous with "interference", and no negative/positive connotations exist. The goals of intervention can be many, not just restoring some previous state, even causing some new state.

(FYI, this is one of those irrelevant things you do to derail the main point because you know you already lost the main point)

You are the one who started arguing semantics, instead of the point. OK, I substitute in the word "interference", and back to the original point please:

Banning is government interference, all legislation IS by definition government interference.

I am not running away from it.

reply to post by Maslo

Enough of this. I am not a native english speaker, so could any native speaker confirm or deny that "intervention" always means "restoration"? It certainly does not in my language. Intervention is synonymous with "interference", and no negative/positive connotations exist. The goals of intervention can be many, not just restoring some previous state, even causing some new state.

Interference usually means destruction, reduction, and dictatorship. Interfering waves destroy signals. interfering in other people's lives destroys their independence, interference with their goals causes stress and revolution.

Intervention usually means restoration. "Having an intervention" is what you do to restore someone to before they were an addict. You intervene in surgery to restore the body. Intervention is a very specific type of restoration with the goal being to make someone as they were, assuming this is a former positive state.

Banning is government interference, all legislation IS by definition government interference.

I am not running away from it.

What kind of banning? It is government interference to ban beer. It is not government interference to rescind something which threatens life.

For example, with rape, the government could advocate that the woman has a right to be free of something she did not choose to do. For someone whom simply had sex and doesn't want the responsibility, then the government is not banning her from abortion. The government is preventing her from murdering someone she willingly took the risk that it may be created.

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by relpobre000

 

Why if we are pro life are we always referred to as the "religious right"? So many people who are pro choice
tend to hide behind this guise........No, we are not people with moral superiority, just people with morals period.


Pax

edit on 1/27/2012 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)

Here's the thing about 'morals'. They are largely subjective. The reason the 'pro-life' movement is referred to as the 'religious right' is because it is mostly a religious movement. Your so called 'morals' are actually just your way of saying I'm superior to you because I believe this or that.

A logical atheist (or semi-logical religious person) can see that making legislation against abortion will only cause more problems just to appease a kooky group of people that believe in souls and spirits.

No one is 'pro-abortion' but sometimes situations deem it necessary. But by fighting against a woman's right to have an abortion you're just impressing your flawed belief system onto others....

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Same could be said for thieves, murderers, and rapists. I mean, what's the difference? Any one of the aforementioned might get killed or injured doing what they do. So should the government protect their right to do it? Should it be a right?

No, not at all. The government isn't about protection your rights, YOU are about protecting your rights. The more power you put in the government's hands, the less of it you have. For ANY subject.

If you are honestly willing to risk your own life to destroy another one, in my book, you are the least among humanity. There is no excuse for such an action and everything that happens because you do this is by all means on your own hands. I honestly would not feel saddened nor feel empathy for their loss, for they showed no empathy to the life they willingly gambled with for short term pleasure.

Well look, I'm not saying that I agree with senseless abortion. You should be made to keep your kid if there is no actual medical reason ( or otherwise) to ahve that done. What I'm saying is that the option NEEDS to be available to prevent some truly horrific and sad things from happening to women who feel like they have no way out.

Now we can look at cases of rape and the like and realize that a real an actual action against someone's will was done. But if you just wanted sex, were dumb and got pregnant, then go ahead and try to kill it, and in doing so risk your own health....nope. Not a shred of pity from me.

edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

This would hardly ever be the case. There isn't a large group of women who have serial abortions for the sake of fun...or being permiscuous.

My point is, the whole idea of telling somebody NO you can't do that, because I said so, even though this decision affects nobody but yourself; is insane.

~Tenth

reply to post by relpobre000


Regarding your graphic picture of Geraldine Santoro.

I could provide links to look at all the dead unborn babies you could ever stand to look at. These babies did nothing, she committed a violent act against her unborn baby that caused her own death.

Okay, it is Safe and Legal that does not make it ethical and that our society accepts it as such provides a great example of why it is in decline. Unfortunately, many have the mentally that is something is legislated it is acceptable. There are such things as unjust laws.

I know of women who use abortion as a method of birth control. I've even seen videos of women bragging of how many they have had as if it was some awesome accomplishment.

reply to post by tothetenthpower
There have been over 50 million abortions since 1973. Are you stating that the majority of these were for medical reasons?

Seems to me that over 1 million abortions a year is more of an epidemic of convenience than any reasons medical.

reply to post by Gorman91

The government is preventing her......

There you go. Government interference in the lives of private citizens.

Of course, sometimes the interference can be justified, for example interference to prevent murder, rape or stealing. But its still interference (which is a neutral word in this context).

The default state of things without government intervention in the matter is pro-choice. Just like default state of things without government intervention in the matter of drugs is all drugs being allowed.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


You're anecdotal evidence, while impressive, doesn't really do a whole lot for me. If they want to get abortions and it's legal then it's their prerogative.

The thing about your pictures of dead babies is this: Most of them never lived. Most were amorphous biological matter that wouldn't have made it outside of the womb.

That young woman was forced (by societal restrictions) to perform a do-it-yourself abortion in a hotel room and she died alone and scared on the floor. If abortion is made illegal this is what we can look forward to for our young women.....

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Gorman91

 

The government is preventing her......

There you go. Government interference in the lives of private citizens.

Of course, sometimes the interference can be justified, for example interference to prevent murder, rape or stealing. But its still interference (which is a neutral word in this context).

The default state of things without government intervention in the matter is pro-choice. Just like default state of things without government intervention in the matter of drugs is all drugs being allowed.

I think you hit the nail squarley on the head on that one. Nicely said.