jackzepplin:
You sound like a good father to me! Don’t take to heart what the God haters have to say. You know how to live your life, that’s obvious to anyone.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jackzepplin:
You sound like a good father to me! Don’t take to heart what the God haters have to say. You know how to live your life, that’s obvious to anyone.[/quote]
Thanks!
I’ve tried to keep my nose out of this debate because of my strong pro-life leanings. I’ll add two things though, since I’ve been lured in.
-
Every man has a right to be part of the child’s life at any and ever stage of formation. That is your flesh & blood, and saying that men don’t have any rights is also saying that men have no responsibility for the child. You see the problem here don’t you? Ever heard the term “Deadbeat Dad”? This is an overwhelming mindset in our culture that needs to be changed. That is your damn child, be a MAN and take some damn responsibility. HAVE A SAY!
-
Killing is wrong, unless in self-defense. This is one Republican that even thinks that the death penalty is wrong (no need to bring in any of rhetoric from the Bush haters). The ONLY case, in which an abortion should be legal, is in the case of self-defense. If the child growing inside of a woman poses a life-threatening situation, then the woman has a “right” to defend herself.
Those are my personal views. If I could have a hand in changing abortion policy, I would be proud to have served my country.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
The Mage wrote:
But many who are opposed to gay marriage still support civil unions. At which point I get confused. It is just a fucking word. Why does anybody care. If civil unions are allowed, then the homosexuals win. They get a marriage, they just use a different word. Then again if it is the same thing, why do those on the right care what it is called? I find this a foolish argument on both sides.
How about Negro Bathrooms and White Bathrooms? The same thing, just different names, right? I would be in favor of only civil unions (and I’m sure many gays would too) if it were the case that marriage and civil unions were exactly the same. But we all know that separate but equal is definitely separate but never equal.
[/quote]
You do realize it could never be equal, just because the two can never have a child together naturally. Also this has nothing to do with segregation, so don?t imply it does.
[quote]icklemoley wrote:
What is it with the bible…read my thread on gay marriage…
People if you think its wrong… fine. If you dont like something fine. But please stop using the bible. How about having your own beliefs without having to grasp at God or the Bible for varification.[/quote]
I never used the Bible in my discussion.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Last night, I was talking to him with my mouth on momma’s belly and he started kickin’ me in the head. That’s my boy![/quote]
What mean things you were saying to him that he would kick you?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
The Mage wrote:
But many who are opposed to gay marriage still support civil unions. At which point I get confused. It is just a fucking word. Why does anybody care. If civil unions are allowed, then the homosexuals win. They get a marriage, they just use a different word. Then again if it is the same thing, why do those on the right care what it is called? I find this a foolish argument on both sides.
How about Negro Bathrooms and White Bathrooms? The same thing, just different names, right? I would be in favor of only civil unions (and I’m sure many gays would too) if it were the case that marriage and civil unions were exactly the same. But we all know that separate but equal is definitely separate but never equal.
You do realize it could never be equal, just because the two can never have a child together naturally. Also this has nothing to do with segregation, so don?t imply it does. [/quote]
My best friend and his wife could not have a child naturally. Does this mean they’re not entitled to equal rights?
I was using an analogy. You would like gays to have the “same” thing as heteros, just with a different name. My point was that when we offer the “same” thing with another name, it tends to not be the same at all.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
Last night, I was talking to him with my mouth on momma’s belly and he started kickin’ me in the head. That’s my boy!
What mean things you were saying to him that he would kick you?[/quote]
I told him that MAG-10 wouldn’t be available for him when he would be old enough to take it.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
My best friend and his wife could not have a child naturally. Does this mean they’re not entitled to equal rights?
I was using an analogy. You would like gays to have the “same” thing as heteros, just with a different name. My point was that when we offer the “same” thing with another name, it tends to not be the same at all.[/quote]
I knew this would get twisted like this. First of all there is a difference between people who cannot have a child because they didn?t evolve that way, and those who cannot because they have a disease, or some medical condition.
Second of all, you are arguing about semantics. What does it matter if it has a different name. Even if it was called marriage, it still wouldn?t be the same. One would be called a hetero-marriage, and one a homo-marriage. Or straight and gay, or some new definitions.
The thing is it is different, and if you cannot understand that, then you are foolish.
Also I have heard from a few people who really didn?t care about calling what they did a marriage. The biggest reason anyone wants the change is for political reasons. To make that political gesture.
One guy I knew got annoyed every time I called his partner his husband.
(And the time he got on his knees to pick up something, I asked him if it reminded him of Steve. He called me an asshole, but he was laughing.)
<Note: name changed to protect the innocent.>
The thing is that people get too involved in these little tiny things that really don?t matter in the long run. Marriage, civil unions, mutually monogamous butt buddies by decree, in the long run what does it matter?
I thought it was about being with a person of your choosing, not getting some stupid word associated with it.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
The thing is that people get too involved in these little tiny things that really don?t matter in the long run. Marriage, civil unions, mutually monogamous butt buddies by decree, in the long run what does it matter?
I thought it was about being with a person of your choosing, not getting some stupid word associated with it.
[/quote]
If you couldn’t get health insurance through your work for the person you were devoted to, would it not bother you? If you had to pay more taxes because of who you chose to love, would it not bother you?
I don’t understand Conservatives who argue that the “marriage penalty” was punitive and yet want it imposed on others.
[quote]doogie wrote:
If you couldn’t get health insurance through your work for the person you were devoted to, would it not bother you? If you had to pay more taxes because of who you chose to love, would it not bother you?
I don’t understand Conservatives who argue that the “marriage penalty” was punitive and yet want it imposed on others.
[/quote]
Wait, I thought we were discussing civil unions. Which would allow this. Civil unions would give these people all the same rights as a marriage, just not the word. Do you understand this?
But then again this is an argument based on gimme. Gimme this, gimme that.
As far as the marriage penalty, this was a screw up where people paid more by being married then by being single. Gay couples were paying less then straight couples, you realize that don?t you? Why? Because they were not married.
The argument was that people should not be taxed extra for being married. So this is a completely different situation then what you are attempting to make it out to be. Gay couples never had the marriage penalty, because they were never legally married.
“People if you think its wrong… fine. If you dont like something fine. But please stop using the bible. How about having your own beliefs without having to grasp at God or the Bible for varification.”
Here we are in a country that protects freedom of religion, maybe evn founded on that very principle. And we have liberals telling us to not practice our religion. IF SOMEONE FOLLOWS A RELIGION THEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO USE IT IN THIER PERSONAL BELIEFS ARGUMENTS! How hard of a concept is this. Do you look at religion as some game people play? People who follow different religion believe 100% of what that religion teaches, They may not follow the teachings to a T but they can certainly argue the ideals of thier religion when defending thier position on something.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
The Mage, sorry for not replying at once and yes, the gun issue has nothing to do with this. I have seen documenteries of your country and of the election and heard alot of peoples opinions and stuff. interesting but i’m somewhat confused on the rights issues. but nevermind that, back to the abortion stuff.
In my country (Sweden), it’s legal to have an abortion, but only within 18 weeks of consieved(?). it is possible to have an abortion later, but then u haveto have some kind of court order.
you argue that a person should protect themselves from becoming pregnant (birth controll), what about rape victims?
and back to the other issue, miss carriage. there are things that you can do to optimize your chanses of giving birth, such as eating the right vitamins and such and there are things you can do to optimize your chanses of miss carrying. is the latter illegal in your country in any way?
What part of that statement implies imposing your beliefs on others?
[quote]Tok wrote:
The Mage, sorry for not replying at once and yes, the gun issue has nothing to do with this. I have seen documenteries of your country and of the election and heard alot of peoples opinions and stuff. interesting but i’m somewhat confused on the rights issues. but nevermind that, back to the abortion stuff.
In my country (Sweden), it’s legal to have an abortion, but only within 18 weeks of consieved(?). it is possible to have an abortion later, but then u haveto have some kind of court order.
you argue that a person should protect themselves from becoming pregnant (birth controll), what about rape victims?
and back to the other issue, miss carriage. there are things that you can do to optimize your chanses of giving birth, such as eating the right vitamins and such and there are things you can do to optimize your chanses of miss carrying. is the latter illegal in your country in any way?[/quote]
In our country right now it is legal to have an abortion a second before giving birth. As long as the fetus has not left the canal, it is legal.
Now as far as rape, the pro lifers always add except in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. So I don’t think a rape abortion would ever be illegal. That being said, about half of the women who become pregnant due to rape decide not to abort. At least in America.
Also as far as increasing the chances of a miscarriage, it may not be as easy as you think. When a woman becomes pregnant, the body tends to sacrifice itself for the fetus, but it is possible. Again I can support a day after pill, again if it is within 14 days. (I may have been less specific on numbers before.)
My understanding is that a forced miscarriage might be easier earlier in the pregnancy, and as a person gets closer too term, it becomes harder. (Don’t quote me on that one though.) I think it would be too hard to prove something like that.
The human body already has a sophisticated method of deciding when to abort fetuses. There are a shocking number of miscarriages that people are not even aware of. The body easily rejects fetuses that are severely deformed. I think that as many as half of all pregnancies end up in miscarriage, and the women are not even aware they were pregnant. (I think this information came out in the late 80’s.)
JP bear: I agree with what you say but the problem begins when people don’t believe in the same thing.
To all: When does the baby have individual rights like anyone else? Conception? When it is finally outside of the mother? First tri-semester? At some point that baby ought to be affored the same individual rights we all enjoy.
A baby should have rights when he/she is able to survive independent of its mother. That’s when he/she becomes an individual, and not a parasite of the mother. Sorry folks, but medically defined, a pregnancy is a form of infection of foreign material introduced into a woman’s body.
Now having said that, I think that we can work something out between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers in this issue. In the Theocracy thread, I semi-jokingly referred to a technological device which could solve this “abortion dilemma” for everybody. I think it’s a shame that abortion should have to happen at all, and if we could just develop an incubator of some kind to grow the fetus into a baby, we wouldn’t have to let fetuses from abortions actually die. Thoughts, anybody?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
A baby should have rights when he/she is able to survive independent of its mother. That’s when he/she becomes an individual, and not a parasite of the mother. Sorry folks, but medically defined, a pregnancy is a form of infection of foreign material introduced into a woman’s body.
Now having said that, I think that we can work something out between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers in this issue. In the Theocracy thread, I semi-jokingly referred to a technological device which could solve this “abortion dilemma” for everybody. I think it’s a shame that abortion should have to happen at all, and if we could just develop an incubator of some kind to grow the fetus into a baby, we wouldn’t have to let fetuses from abortions actually die. Thoughts, anybody?[/quote]
A baby can survive outside its mother prior to birth (see post above) obviously with help. Would you deem this acceptable within our debate here? You couldn’t mean that the baby needs to survive by itself to be affored the rights of life that we enjoy. What baby carried full term and outside the mother could survive on it’s own?
By the way if a baby who was carried to full term and then was purposely killed by someone it would be deemed murder.
What I meant was a baby who doesn’t need to be attached to a woman to survive should be considered an individual. My invention would be substituted for a uterus, preventing a needless death from occuring.
And about the six cells not being a person: I agree. But the whole point is semantic because it’s not like we can abort six cells. Christ, it’s hard enough doing a D+C on a one month old fetus. My favorite take on this issue is from one of the most insightful comedians the world has ever seen, Bill Hicks.
“Okay pro-life people, you want an answer? Fine. You’re not a person until you’re in my phone book… There! Now I’ve thrown my hat into the political ring…”
I miss Bill Hicks. He died way too young.
This is, at its essence, a moral question, and it won’t ever be solved by an appeal to science or medicine or definitions.
Since this question is about life, perhaps a useful analogy would be to death. Is a person dead when he is “brain dead,” or only when clinically dead? Science doesn’t answer this, and unless it comes up with a way to read thoughts it won’t answer it. A doc can tell you about electrical acitivity, synapse firings, etc., but it’s up to you to determine what that means.
W/r/t babies, the pertinent question is when we as a society decide the fetus has its own rights independent of the mother. Science won’t solve it for you.
Does a lump of cells have rights because those cells have individual DNA sequences separate from the mother, and would develop into a human in the normal course of things? Does an 8 1/2-month fetus have rights? What about in between? Where do we draw the line?
Did a woman make her choice when she chose to engage in sex, irrespective of how she tried (or didn’t try) to use protection, because there’s always the chance of conception? Should she have a choice to abort an 8-month fetus because of changed circumstances in life, like a fiance who leaves her when she’s 8 months pregnant, unemployed and uninsured?
Those are tough questions, and even if you have a set of moral principles that dictates your answers absolutely, I’m sure you can see the concerns on the other side. Or maybe not – but you should.