Liberal inconsistency about abortion ...

[McCulloch]

And here's the inconsistency. Liberals want abortions for raped women, yet oppose the death penalty. The rapist, who deserves to die more then the innocent fetus, is protected by death penalty opposers.

Are the Liberals being inconsistent by wanting access to abortion while opposing the death penalty? Do rapists deserve to die? Is there a corresponding inconsistency in those who oppose abortion as murder but are for the death penalty (except for the women seeking abortions)?

[chris_brown207]

There's nothing new about people killing their kids, the ancients did it, even after birth. I suppose that will be proposed next here.

Only by the uneducated, and apparently you...

As far as "plenty of mothers looking to adopt"... while that might make a peppy little catch phrase in a pro-life handbook, the reality is that every year thousands of children go unadopted and become wardens of the state. If I remember correctly the number was over 100,000 in 2003. And studies have shown that children in foster care have a much greater likelihood of living a life of crime and drugs later in life... (not that any of those are reasons to abort a pregnancy,

AGREED, so what's your point?

The point is, the case for legalization of abortion goes well beyond the oversimplified and "end of the world" paranoia of those seeking to make it illegal. All one has to do is look at the other nations of the world who have legalized abortions longer than we have to see the world didn't come crashing down around them...

[WinePusher]

There's nothing new about people killing their kids, the ancients did it, even after birth. I suppose that will be proposed next here.

Only by the uneducated, and apparently you...

Never heard of Peter Singer, huh?

[chris_brown207]

There's nothing new about people killing their kids, the ancients did it, even after birth. I suppose that will be proposed next here.

Only by the uneducated, and apparently you...

Never heard of Peter Singer, huh?

No, actually I haven't... I had to look him up on Wikipedia. Apparently he is a philosopher who wrote a book that had passages dealing with abortion and morality.

I did not care to read further, because frankly I really wasn't interested in what he had to say. If you suggest that he proposed killing children after birth, then frankly I would believe you.

I would believe you because there are extremists and irrationals on both sides of the aisle on this topic. There are those who would seek to allow abortions up to minutes before the birth for any and all reasons (and apparently even after birth...). And then there are those who would seek to outlaw abortions for any and all reasons, including incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother no matter what trimester.

I tend to fall along the lines of the great majority of Americans (66% - 2003 survey about the legality of abortions during the first, second, and last trimester) who believe that abortions should be legal for any reason during at least the first trimester. I guess that would make me a moderate on the issue.

[fewwillfindit]

I see, so your view is that in order to alleviate the burdens of the state, and to prevent the child from growing up and living a life of crime and drugs, we should just do away with them and not give them a chance. That is NOT your choice choice, that is the choice of the person. YOU and others don't get to decide whether a person should live or die because you think their quality of life will be bad.

Why's that? If I am their superior - and I will always be superior to a crackbaby - it is entirely within my power to decide their fate. You sound like a whiny liberal on this matter.

What makes you superior to a crackbaby? Is it that your mother made better choices than the crackbaby's? What has that to do with you? That has everything to do with your mother, and possibly your father, then it does you.

I say you were more fortunate, not superior.

[SailingCyclops]

we ought to adopt a eugenics program modeled after that of the Spartans.

That was tried again between 1940 and 1945 in Germany. Didn't work out so well for that society did it? How would you have conducted that eugenics program better?

Bob

[East of Eden]

Yes, and the ancients were vastly more intelligent than the typical American hoosier in his Doc Martens and flannel jean-jacket who protests abortion on Sunday morning after waking up from his sojourn to the strip club on Saturday night. We ought to be conservatives; we ought to look to history for what to do; we ought to adopt a eugenics program modeled after that of the Spartans.

And if you get in a car wreck today and become one of the unvaluable ones, are go ready to be killed?

Many from disadvantaged backgrounds have contributed tremendously to society, while many from priveledged upbringings (think Ted Kennedy) have not.

[cnorman18]

Deleted.

[East of Eden]

A newborn has limited constitutional rights; cannot sue or be sued in court; cannot vote.

True, but a fetus has NONE! A fetus is an integral part of the mother's body till birth, just like every other part of her body. A woman has total control over every part of her body (so far at least).

Bob

A fetus is NOT a part of a woman's body, it can have a different blood type and gender, and if it doesn't eventually leave the woman's body, she will die.

With just as much certainty, until viability that cannot live on its own. It is entirely dependent, subordinate. It has not life of its own. Without life of its own, can we justify giving it any rights of its own?

The same could be said for a 1 year old, a retarded person, or an elderly person. We saw what happened last century when millions were murdered for being in the wrong category.

All human life is valuable, even fetus realthinker.

No, the same cannot be said of any of those. None of those are directly and totally dependent upon another's metabolism and respiration.

Should we kill those dependent on a dialysis machine or respirator?

[SailingCyclops]

Should we kill those dependent on a dialysis machine or respirator?

Absolutely not! That said, A sane person would not choose to live with that quality of life. I certainly would not. For me quality by far supersedes longevity.

I have explicit instructions in my living will that I refuse such treatment; including tube nutrition/hydration, respirator, admittance into a burn unit, and several other no-no's, IF there is no/little chance of recovery to a fully-functioning mental and physical quality of life.

I believe our society has taken a terrible wrong turn with their "life at any cost" paradigm. Not only is it unhealthy for the individual, and for society, but it adversely tampers with the very evolutionary process which has made us what we are as a species. Sometimes, letting nature take it's course is the sanest and least painful and destructive course to take.

Some sanity in life/death issues is sorely needed here; including the areas of womens reproductive health and abortion, and physician assisted suicide. A mother who can not provide a quality of life for her unborn should be encouraged to abort the fetus. A person who doesn't care to live with his or her existing quality of life, should be helped to end that life with dignity.

Bob

[cnorman18]

Should we kill those dependent on a dialysis machine or respirator?

Absolutely not! That said, A sane person would not choose to live with that quality of life. I certainly would not. For me quality by far supersedes longevity.

On the rest, I might agree with you, depending; but I had a client for the better part of a year (for those who don't know, I make my living as a caregiver for the elderly) who had been on dialysis for ten years. You aren't supposed to be able to do that, but Ken did -- and he was saner than I was on my best day.

Ken was a WWII fighter-pilot instructor, cared for his own beloved wife who had Alzheimer's till her death, and, till he lost a leg a few months before I met him, he was VERY active. He mowed his own (large) yard with a walk-behind mower, for instance, at the age of 86. He was terribly resentful and bitter after he lost the leg, and resisted my care at first; but we eventually became good friends, and he lived out his last days with joy and gusto and with the love and presence of his family, and me. He never missed a Cowboys game, and every time he saw his children or their spouses or his grandchildren, the visits ended with "Sure do love you!" on both sides. The dialysis eventually killed him, weakening his system till he suffered repeated pneumonia infections, but he was as tough as an old boot and went out fighting. I know; I was with him to the very end. I admired Ken, and I wouldn't have begrudged him a single day. I can even say I loved him.

I have known and cared for people who were blind, crippled, horribly scarred, deaf, and you name it, who lived vital, relatively active lives filled with love, joy and fulfillment in spite of their infirmities and misfortunes. I personally think many people are too willing to just give up and "go gently into that good night" when faced with anything less than the ideally happy and complete "quality of life." Real life doesn't often offer perfection, and as for me, I'm not going out without a fight either. Mental impairment aside, I've been taught to bear up and grab life by the neck, whatever we have to bear -- and I've been taught by the best.

I wear a tattoo of my own design on my arm; an armored, broken heart in flames, with the legend "INVICTUS." "Undefeated," if you don't know either the poem or Latin. Confess defeat and jump off the edge, when there is still life to live? Pfft. I once had chronic depression, inherited from my father, and I resisted suicide by will alone for 30 years. Now, at 60, I have finally found the love of my life and savor every single day. Life is worth living, if only to see what happens next.