Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

Whether or not a foetus is a human being is moot.

Moot? Why is that? ... It might be acceptable legally, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable ethically. What if it's legal to discriminate against blacks? Would that also mean that it's ethical to discriminate against them?

Moot in that whether or not a foetus is a human being has no practical significance as far as abortion being murder is concerned. Murder is an illegal activity - abortion is not (or should not be).

[Daystar] Abortion is not murder because seven justices said so. One day they will find their decision overturned before another Justice. I challenge you to show us in the Constitution where it says that women have the right to destroy their unborn babies.

[bernee51]

Abortion is not murder because seven justices said so. One day they will find their decision overturned before another Justice.

one willoverturbn seven?

I challenge you to show us in the Constitution where it says that women have the right to destroy their unborn babies.

What has the constitution got to do with it?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's as to what it says and doesn't say - the constitution does not apply to me.

[Illyricum]

I don't have time to discuss the whole post but I did want to say something about this:

Y'know, I always wonder why the Pro-Life folks are against choice.

The choice for what, to kill? Pro-Abortionists argue that women should have the right to choose. Well, why don't we just give women the right to choose to kill their children outside of the womb? Or why don't we just give people the right choose to do whatever they want to do, the right to choose wether or not they want to steal, or kill, or do whatever? Do you see my point?

[Daystar]

Abortion is not murder because seven justices said so. One day they will find their decision overturned before another Justice.

one willoverturbn seven?

[Daystar] Yes, when they stand before God, they will understand that they made the wrong decision.

I challenge you to show us in the Constitution where it says that women have the right to destroy their unborn babies.

What has the constitution got to do with it?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's as to what it says and doesn't say - the constitution does not apply to me.

[Daystar] You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.

[Jose]

The choice for what, to kill? Pro-Abortionists argue that women should have the right to choose. Well, why don't we just give women the right to choose to kill their children outside of the womb? Or why don't we just give people the right choose to do whatever they want to do, the right to choose wether or not they want to steal, or kill, or do whatever? Do you see my point?

No, I don't. You're equating a blob of cells with less biological sophistication than a fish to a living child. You're also equating a very personal issue that intensely affects a mother (but no one else) to a series of wacky behaviors that destabilize society. The comparisons aren't valid.

What has the constitution got to do with it?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's as to what it says and doesn't say - the constitution does not apply to me.

You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.

Day! We agree! I knew we'd find common ground somewhere.

Bernee51, the constitution does apply to you, and you really do care. If it didn't, you could be grabbed in the night by the secret police and held in an undisclosed location without charges and without access to legal assistance. (oops. sorry. that's happening now. wrong example) I guess it makes a difference where you live, and what governmental policies are in place there. Thus, you make the point that our precious constitution is applied rather unequally, depending on citizenship and, unfortunately, racial and ethnic heritage, and monetary income. Sigh. We make all this noise about how "good" we are, while overlooking the fact that some of us are more equal than others.

[Corvus]

[bernee51]

You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.

No I'm not angry - why do you think I am? What anger have you seen in my post?

I do, however, get a little miffed at those who hold a particular stance e.g. abortion is wrong, and want their POV to apply to all. This is particulary so when the decision an individal may or may not make is not going to impact on those pushing a particular POV.

Tell me, what is the effeect on you if your neighvbour chooses to abort? What right do you have to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. How would you feel if she pushed to enact a law that prevented you from praying?

[bernee51]

Bernee51, the constitution does apply to you,

Jose I would have thought that you at least would be thinking outside the box a little here. The constitiution does not apply to me because I do not live in the USofA. I know it is sometimes difficult for you 'Mericans to understand that there is a world outside you country. Remember, the USofA is only 5% of the world's population.

and you really do care.

I care in so much as I believe that human rights should be applied universally. Telling an individual what they can and cannot do with their own body (assuming they are sound of mind) is a basic human right which the RTL's want removed.

f it didn't, you could be grabbed in the night by the secret police and held in an undisclosed location without charges and without access to legal assistance. (oops. sorry. that's happening now. wrong example)

the USofA used to be the land of the free...is it now the land of the paranoic. (Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you)

We make all this noise about how "good" we are, while overlooking the fact that some of us are more equal than others.

not much has changed since we dragged ourselves out of the swamp has it?i

[Corvus]

Bernee51, the constitution does apply to you,

Jose I would have thought that you at least would be thinking outside the box a little here. The constitiution does not apply to me because I do not live in the USofA.

I thought he allowed for this possibility by saying: I guess it makes a difference where you live, and what governmental policies are in place there. Thus, you make the point that our precious constitution is applied rather unequally, depending on citizenship and, unfortunately, racial and ethnic heritage, and monetary income.

Even so, I don't believe there are any civilised countries that do not have a constitution. The Constitution may not apply to you, but a constitution should.

[Jose]

Jose I would have thought that you at least would be thinking outside the box a little here. The constitiution does not apply to me because I do not live in the USofA. I know it is sometimes difficult for you 'Mericans to understand that there is a world outside you country. Remember, the USofA is only 5% of the world's population.

I was too cryptic. I'd figured that out, as I'd hoped I'd indicated in the next few sentences, as Corvus noted. The prior bit was a jab at the Bushies. A bit off-topic, though.

Back on-topic, Corvus, you make a strong argument. Without legal protection of abortion rights and qualified practitioners to ensure that abortions are performed with minimum health risk, we are in danger of reverting to that nasty time when self-induced abortion was a major cause of death.