Another Abortion Argument

[GMDino]

(05-27-2016, 12:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I disagree because namely Roe v Wade is based on a lie. 

(05-27-2016, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Which is?

https://azconservative.org/2013/01/21/roe-v-wade-based-on-lies-dishonesty-pagan-culture/

Quote:Roe v. Wade was based on lies, dishonesty and pagan culture. Conservatives were not yet organized enough to oppose the left-inspired string of Supreme Court victories that began in 1947 and radically altered the identity of the United States.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his Roe decision, “We are also told that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman era, and that it was resorted to without scruple. Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn,” and “ancient religion did not bar abortion.”


Ancient religion? Whatever happened to liberals’ so-called separation of church and state? Greek and Roman law? Since when has the U.S. operated by Greek and Roman law, or even Scottish law as Sen. Arlen Specter asserted during the Clinton impeachment?



Norma McCorvey, alias “Roe” in Roe v. Wade, is today a pro-life activist. She saysRoe v. Wade, “was all based on a lie. It was a lie that I told. Initially, I had told (attorney) Sarah Weddington that I had been raped, and I was not raped. I only went to one place, so I wasn’t seeking it (abortion) real hard. I had asked Sarah Weddington if there was any place I could go to have an abortion. She said she didn’t know of any place, when she had already gone to Mexico and had an illegal abortion. I think that she just needed to have a plaintiff pregnant. They explained to me that they were only going for the State of Texas. I didn’t know that they were going for the whole world. I think we all have the same dream: we’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

Which is a bit of cherry picking that results in it being repeated as the whole truth.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

Quote:In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face. 


Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions. 

However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-24-2016, 11:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Those aren't all exactly comparable issues.  I could say the people who fight to save the lives of murderers are the same ones who fight to be able to slaughter unborn babies.

I could also ask why it's less and less a woman's body the further along she gets in pregnancy.

It would also be fair to ask why the science part is ignored. The fetus/zygote etc what ever you want to call it, is the life process of every human being. The only Human Being that skipped those stages is Morgan Freeman. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2016, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It would also be fair to ask why the science part is ignored. The fetus/zygote etc what ever you want to call it, is the life process of every human being. The only Human Being that skipped those stages is Morgan Freeman. 

Folks try to cloud the situation by debating when when life begins and what constitutes a "viable" life; however, the one thing that cannot be debated is abortion takes a living being and kills it. 

[BigPapaKain]

(05-28-2016, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks try to cloud the situation by debating when when life begins and what constitutes a "viable" life; however, the one thing that cannot be debated is abortion takes a living being and kills it. 

So do antibiotics.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2016, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks try to cloud the situation by debating when when life begins and what constitutes a "viable" life; however, the one thing that cannot be debated is abortion takes a living being and kills it. 

And the sanctity of life folks cloud the situation by debating life begins at conception while ignoring the two single celled gametes needed for conception to occur meet the same criteria of "life" as a single celled zygote.  If we found either of those two living gametes on an alien planet, scientists would claim they found life on another planet.  But, somehow that life doesn't count as life.

You were a Cav Scout, right?  A job which could require you to kill another human.  Why is it okay for you to kill, but abortion should be outlawed?  And before you start, this isn't an attempt at a "gotcha," it is a serious question.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2016, 10:05 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So do antibiotics.

Comparing an unborn child to bacterial infection is pretty much the rallying cry for Pro-choice. I can feel for a young girl who thinks she has no other choice but to abort her child; however, I find the "it's the same as bacteria"  approach to be totally without class or reason.

(05-28-2016, 10:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And the sanctity of life folks cloud the situation by debating life begins at conception while ignoring the two single celled gametes needed for conception to occur meet the same criteria of "life" as a single celled zygote.  If we found either of those two living gametes on an alien planet, scientists would claim they found life on another planet.  But, somehow that life doesn't count as life.

You were a Cav Scout, right?  A job which could require you to kill another human.  Why is it okay for you to kill, but abortion should be outlawed?  And before you start, this isn't an attempt at a "gotcha," it is a serious question.

When I engage(d) in combat operations it was either because I was attacked first or in retaliation to an atrocity.  In either case those far above my pay-grade determined in was in the best interest on my Nation and the lives of innocent people. We have Rules of Engagement and we err on the side of caution. I never engaged with (much less murder) anyone simply because they were an inconvenience. 

The comparison of brave men and women that put their lives on the line to defend our Nation, our allies, and our interests to someone that kills an innocent, healthy child is only trumped in classlessness by those that compare the child to bacteria or a parasite. 

[GMDino]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

Quote: Wrote:In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face. 


Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions. 

However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern. 

When you are a pregnant woman you can decide to not have an abortion.

If you are not a pregnant woman you can do all kinds of things like try to help with educating people on sex and the consequences, advertising and promoting adoption services, supporting groups that help those who are in positions that having a child will great a tremendous burden on them.

If you are not a pregnant woman you cannot decide if a pregnant woman has an abortion.

But please, keep arguing and creating all kinds of fanciful scenarios and "reasons" for why you are right and they are wrong.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2016, 11:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Comparing an unborn child to bacterial infection is pretty much the rallying cry for Pro-choice. I can feel for a young girl who thinks she has no other choice but to abort her child; however, I find the "it's the same as bacteria"  approach to be totally without class or reason.

When I engage(d) in combat operations it was either because I was attacked first or in retaliation to an atrocity.  In either case those far above my pay-grade determined in was in the best interest on my Nation and the lives of innocent people. We have Rules of Engagement and we err on the side of caution. I never engaged with (much less murder) anyone simply because they were an inconvenience. 

The comparison of brave men and women that put their lives on the line to defend our Nation, our allies, and our interests to someone that kills an innocent, healthy child is only trumped in classlessness by those that compare the child to bacteria or a parasite. 

I understand all of what you are saying and I have tremendous respect for your service.  I'm not trying to demean that in any way. 

What I'm saying is I don't understand the disconnect that abortion is wrong, but killing your enemy is right if one truly believes in the sanctity of life.  This isn't a personal swipe at you.  If I offended you I apologize.  I'm saying at can't reconcile those two ideas inside of my own head I when contemplate a Creator and what he expects of us.

[BFritz21]

(05-28-2016, 11:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I understand all of what you are saying and I have tremendous respect for your service.  I'm not trying to demean that in any way. 

What I'm saying is I don't understand the disconnect that abortion is wrong, but killing your enemy is right if one truly believes in the sanctity of life.  This isn't a personal swipe at you.  If I offended you I apologize.  I'm saying at can't reconcile those two ideas inside of my own head I when contemplate a Creator and what he expects of us.

I can't speak for bfine, but my personal opinion would be that a soldier kills to protect himself, his fellow soldiers, and, in the end, innocent people that the person he killed would kill, so he is protecting the sanctity of life.  A unborn child is innocent and has the potential to live a full and happy life, as well as bring happiness to others and at least help in bringing another human being into the world.

Lord knows that I'm not a big enough bad-ass to be a soldier, but that would be my outlook on it.

Now, if a baby had a gun inside the mother and was going to shoot the hell out of her insides and kill her, then I'd agree with you.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 11:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I can't speak for bfine, but my personal opinion would be that a soldier kills to protect himself, his fellow soldiers, and, in the end, innocent people that the person he killed would kill, so he is protecting the sanctity of life.  A unborn child is innocent and has the potential to live a full and happy life, as well as bring happiness to others and at least help in bringing another human being into the world.

Lord knows that I'm not a big enough bad-ass to be a soldier, but that would be my outlook on it.

Now, if a baby had a gun inside the mother and was going to shoot the hell out of her insides and kill her, then I'd agree with you.

Also has a chance of being an asshole who creates problems for everyone.  So there's that argument. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2016, 11:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I understand all of what you are saying and I have tremendous respect for your service.  I'm not trying to demean that in any way. 

What I'm saying is I don't understand the disconnect that abortion is wrong, but killing your enemy is right if one truly believes in the sanctity of life.  This isn't a personal swipe at you.  If I offended you I apologize.  I'm saying at can't reconcile those two ideas inside of my own head I when contemplate a Creator and what he expects of us.

No offense, as I know you served as well. The guilt and remorse a Soldier feels is a real thing. I suppose the easiest answer is to look inside and determine the motivation. If someone's intent is to go into a crowed market and kill as many people as he or she can,I have no issue with making sure that person does not obtain his or her goal. Similarly if an organization's mission is to treat women as nothing more than dogs (in some cases worse) and decide a good lesson would be to mutilate a young girl and kill her family because she had the nerve to try to go to school, then I have no problem doing what is required to stop that trend.

As I have said: I have compassion for a young, scared girl that feels she has no other choice. It is just my wish that killing the unborn child not be so convenient. I know we will never live in a utopia where no one has abortions and all grow up healthy and happy; I just think it shouldn't be so simple to abort the child.

I have seen legislature aimed making the process more strict get, such as the facilities and the credentials of those preforming the abortion be dismissed as "hate". I could pose some compromises; however, they would most likely be viewed as controlling a woman's body. Don't folks realize that when a woman has an abortion she is giving over control of her body. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2016, 11:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I can't speak for bfine, but my personal opinion would be that a soldier kills to protect himself, his fellow soldiers, and, in the end, innocent people that the person he killed would kill, so he is protecting the sanctity of life.  A unborn child is innocent and has the potential to live a full and happy life, as well as bring happiness to others and at least help in bringing another human being into the world.

Lord knows that I'm not a big enough bad-ass to be a soldier, but that would be my outlook on it.

Now, if a baby had a gun inside the mother and was going to shoot the hell out of her insides and kill her, then I'd agree with you.

As philhos pointed out earlier this week, according to Christian doctrine we are all born sinners which means we are all start out behind the 8 ball.  We are all born on the Highway to Hell, so to speak, and only through God's mercy will that change.  We would like to believe Heaven is a performance based endeavor or at least a destination we have control over because of free will.  But, God's mercy can be arbitrary.  He shows mercy to whomever he chooses to show mercy. He doesn't show mercy to whomever he chooses not to show mercy.  For instance, He could choose not to show you mercy condemning you to Hell and choose to show mercy to that POS you know in jail.  So that innocent unborn child may live a full and happy life and bring happiness to others . . . and still not receive God's mercy.

In addition, there are some hard core born again Christians that believe the souls of fetuses who die during a miscarriage go to Hell because they weren't "saved."  Let me be clear they are a minority and I'm not trying to claim the majority of Christians believe that, but I've read their scripture based explanations for that belief which they are teaching to others.  It's just another belief that I can't reconcile with a Creator capable of creating the universe and everything in it to the last detail.

[*Nately120*]

(05-28-2016, 12:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: As philhos pointed out earlier this week, according to Christian doctrine we are all born sinners which means we are all start out behind the 8 ball.  We are all born on the Highway to Hell, so to speak, and only through God's mercy will that change.

I always thought that was pretty convenient that Christianity diagnoses EVERYONE with a completely unavoidable sin that can (surprise!) only be cured by their particular brand of faith.  That is an infomercial and/or medical hoax level of malarkey, I tells ya!

Did you know that you have Gijloiusliak's disease?  Yep, you do.  Everyone does!  You get it from breathing anywhere and at anytime, so you got it.  How fortunate are you that I just happen to sell the ONLY think that cures Gijloiusliak's disease AND you only have to take it every day for the rest of your life!  Aren't I the best?  Also, I don't want to pay taxes.

The human mind is intriguing as hell, I tells ya!  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2016, 12:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No offense, as I know you served as well. The guilt and remorse a Soldier feels is a real thing. I suppose the easiest answer is to look inside and determine the motivation. If someone's intent is to go into a crowed market and kill as many people as he or she can,I have no issue with making sure that person does not obtain his or her goal. Similarly if an organization's mission is to treat women as nothing more than dogs (in some cases worse) and decide a good lesson would be to mutilate a young girl and kill her family because she had the nerve to try to go to school, then I have no problem doing what is required to stop that trend.

As I have said: I have compassion for a young, scared girl that feels she has no other choice. It is just my wish that killing the unborn child not be so convenient. I know we will never live in a utopia where no one has abortions and all grow up healthy and happy; I just think it shouldn't be so simple to abort the child.

I have seen legislature aimed making the process more strict get, such as the facilities and the credentials of those preforming the abortion be dismissed as "hate". I could pose some compromises; however, they would most likely be viewed as controlling a woman's body. Don't folks realize that when a woman has an abortion she is giving over control of her body. 

Before I became an Army PA, I was infantry.  Started out in 3rd Ranger Battalion.  Most of the men there, me included, want(ed) to go combat because we're ****** in the head. I remember sitting in the barracks of Charlie Company watching CNN reports of Bravo Company in the firefight that inspired Black Hawk Down and we were pissed we weren't there.  I'm still pissed off at Les Aspin for only sending Bravo Company instead of the whole damn battalion.  I probably have an overly romanticized view of what soldiers do.  We're willing to risk our lives for others because . . . well, who else is going to do it?  So I understand the greater good rationalization of killing, but I think most infantryman's motivation is, "Die, mother *****!!!" before they kill you.  The greater good goes right out the window when the survival instinct kicks in and the Somalis are using women and children as human shields.  It's strange how a situation can be simple and complicated simultaneously.  If you are under fire you return fire; simple.  But, what happens to the greater good when you have to kill innocent women and children being used as human shields by the men shooting at you?  Complicated.  When I went to Iraq I was a PA.  I didn't have to personally kill anyone, but we didn't return with everyone and I still wonder if there was more I could have done to treat their wounds.  I don't feel guilty, I feel betrayed by the political leaders I put my trust in to only use us for the greater good instead of a bunch of lies.  The situation is so much worse than before we went into Iraq.  We basically created ISIS which has led to the current refugee crisis and so much untold human suffering.  And there is all this anti-refugee sentiment for people who are just trying to get the **** away from a situation we poured gasoline on.  As one US official said, "Iraq has turned out worse than my worst nightmare."  Where's the greater good in all of that?  I don't know.

There are at least three interpretations of turning the other cheek, one of which is the basis of Christian pacifism.  Jesus himself was a pacifist who taught pacifism to his disciples. 

Which brings me back to the sanctity of life and how religion seems to have a sliding scale depending upon the situation.  Different religions treat the sanctity of life differently.  Within the same religion, people have different interpretations on scripture dealing with the sanctity of life, for example Christians differ about pacifism.  When you wrote, "I suppose the easiest answer is to look inside and determine the motivation" aren't you leaving the decision making up to the individual based upon their morals?

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 12:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have seen legislature aimed making the process more strict get, such as the facilities and the credentials of those preforming the abortion be dismissed as "hate". I could pose some compromises; however, they would most likely be viewed as controlling a woman's body. Don't folks realize that when a woman has an abortion she is giving over control of her body. 

[fredtoast]

(05-28-2016, 12:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have seen legislature aimed making the process more strict get, such as the facilities and the credentials of those preforming the abortion be dismissed as "hate".

That is because the point of those laws is not to maketo procedure safer.  Their main purpose is to drive all abortion cilincs out of business.  It is a plan that has worked in other states and is now being employed here in Tennessee.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2016, 03:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We basically created ISIS which has led to the current refugee crisis and so much untold human suffering.

This line is false, it was already there, ever heard of the Sicarii? They've been fighting this way for centuries.
You say we made it worse, no we didn't, from what I recall, Sadaam's military and kids were free to terrorize anyone they wished and they did with out any/very little repercussions. The difference between then is now is we are trying to defend them, but we've become limited by political red tape. 
Anyways, it was nice to see that the science dictating that a fetus is a human being was quickly glossed over and it became an argument against religion yet again.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-30-2016, 01:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This line is false, it was already there, ever heard of the Sicarii? They've been fighting this way for centuries.
You say we made it worse, no we didn't, from what I recall, Sadaam's military and kids were free to terrorize anyone they wished and they did with out any/very little repercussions. The difference between then is now is we are trying to defend them, but we've become limited by political red tape. 
Anyways, it was nice to see that the science dictating that a fetus is a human being was quickly glossed over and it became an argument against religion yet again.

What was ISIS like before the 2003 invasion of Iraq? If you don't understand how our involvement directly lead to ISIS's current composition and disposition then you don't know enough to even be allowed in this conversation.

I didn't gloss over anything. Are living cells life?

[*PhilHos*]

(05-27-2016, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yet, even that is debated among the various Christian denominations.

True.

(05-27-2016, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  Yet, that is exactly what we were doing in Iraq. 

Is it? Did only one person make that decision?

At the end of the day, it's up to each individual to decide if they're doing the right thing AND to live with the decision(s) they've made.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-28-2016, 12:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: As philhos pointed out earlier this week, according to Christian doctrine we are all born sinners which means we are all start out behind the 8 ball.  We are all born on the Highway to Hell, so to speak, and only through God's mercy will that change.  We would like to believe Heaven is a performance based endeavor or at least a destination we have control over because of free will.  But, God's mercy can be arbitrary.  He shows mercy to whomever he chooses to show mercy. He doesn't show mercy to whomever he chooses not to show mercy.  For instance, He could choose not to show you mercy condemning you to Hell and choose to show mercy to that POS you know in jail.  So that innocent unborn child may live a full and happy life and bring happiness to others . . . and still not receive God's mercy.

Not quite. God has declared that EVERYONE can receive His mercy. It is up to US to take advantage of it.