1. Is it more just to make abortion illegal or more just to legalize it?
I changed the title because the dispute should not be about the name-- the name should follow the dispute not visa verse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Please follow this blog! click on "Follow blog"
Followers
Counter
Guidelines
My Uncle John wisely said " political opinions of others can be taken as a criticism of ourselves for holding a different position". Be careful! This is a political and Religious debate blog-- your position should and will be criticized. Please, Please, Please-- do not be offended. You are not being attacked, so do not be defensive. It is not you but your reasoning that are under fire-- heated up until the inconsistencies and weaknesses in your reasoning are apparent.
57 comments:
Pro choice and Pro life, I find it ridiculous to label someone pro choice as "anti life." I personally think that there are so many options for a mother that doesnt want her child that abortion is just plain never neccesary, but that being said im not a woman who is victim to rape or incest or 12 years old, or any other reason given. So pro life personally, but who am i to choose for someone else?
I have carefully created an analogy situation.
There is a jar with two identical looking pills in it. One pill is deadly poisonous, the other pill is completely harmless. A woman has given birth to an infant. After having the infant for 10 seconds she decides that she no longer wishes to have this baby. She is handed the jar with the two pills and explained the pills properties. She knows that one of the two pills will end in the death of the child-- but is only allowed to take out one pill. She reaches into the jar and takes out one of the pills and places it in the babies mouth, the child swallows the pill.
Please answer this question directly:
1).Should this procedure be legal or permitted? yes or no.
I agree that those who are Pro Choice should not be labeled "anti-life" and they are often attacked with words like "baby-killers" and "murderers". It comes down to the point that Pro-Choicers support an equal political right - a fundamental right that is within our Constitution... a right to privacy. Women have that same right to make private decisions about our bodies and our pregnancies. However, not all Pro-Choicers would actually have an abortion themselves and you can see that with a lot of politicians who vote Pro-Choice but who are also Pro-Life in their personal decisions. Our country proudly represents itself as free and equal and in order to keep that we should support Constitutional Rights. I believe that Barack Obama hit it on the nail in his acceptance speech at the DNC. He said, "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country". Why can't we support a fundamental right for our citizens and the founding words of our country that give all our citizens rights to privacy and choice, but also at the same time reduce unwanted pregnancies. And, above all else, when a young person gives birth to a child instead of resorting to abortion, accept her. Especially within the church - support her at the most important time and that encourages others to not abort their babies if they see that support. We can work together on this issue.
I think that I agree with everything that you said except I want to really analyze this statement "Women have that same right to make private decisions about our bodies and our pregnancies." I even agree with the statement... but I think that we interpret it differently. In order to help me to understand the differences in our interpretation Please answer yes or no-- if you had to vote on whether the above analogy should be made legal or not.
Extremes are absurd and don't work well...Children raped with incest of 8yrs old pregnant can't have an abortion due that it's illegal in many countries where Catholics and the Pope influences the state affairs. Exceptions should be legalized like incest, rape, dangerous to the mother's life, under age polygamy abused, satanic abuses on under age or virgins, experimental govermental procedures that can endanger the baby and mother, baby can't survive beyond birth etc. The apostle Russell M. Nelson counsels that even with his four suggested exceptions, one needs to pray about it and counsel with the Lord. My whole thing is that exceptions or special circusmtances should be legal period.
In answer to the question that you posed, no, that should absolutely not be legal. Now if I gather the direction you're going with this, which I may not, then "whats the difference between the pill scenario and abortion?" If the mother was able to carry the child through the entire pregnancy, and it was born, then you have already gone through the "hard part." So many options exist now that the pill scenario, I think, doesn't really have anything to do with abortion. While there may have been "good" reasons to abort the child to avoid the pregnancy, there is no good reason that I can imagine to kill a child that so many other parents would gladly accept and love as their own.
I want to clarify that I am adamantly against abortion personally, for far more personal reasons than I think almost any other male could be. Suffice it to say that while my mother went through hell on earth, so to speak, during her pregnancy, she still carried me until birth and then put me up for adoption. Which I love her for. I don't say this to make others uncomfortable with disagreeing with my stand point, only to be sure that no thinks that this is an issue I am on the fence about. So, while I am personally against abortion myself, I don't feel I have any say in what others do with their bodies. Is it wrong to "kill babies" as you so vividly put it Richard? Of course, but as you also stated, and I agree with, you aren't worried about the souls of the babies, but those of the mothers/parents. Well, while I worry for them as well, I would like to assume that the decision was not made lightly. If they DID make that decision lightly, than they obviously don't have the same morals and ideas as you and I, and more than likely have other sins to worry about. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about the women that did think the situation through to the end and still decided to go through with the abortion. Maybe she had an extremely valid reason, like the rape and incest scenarios, or maybe it was something else. My reason for remaining Pro Choice while adamantly anti abortion is that I don;t pretend to know all the reasons people have for doing the things they do, and don't feel it's my right to impose my perspective on someone else.
OK first of all Abortion is killing a baby. I mean really, when a mother is pregnant what are you thinking? Thinking about names for the child, you are thinking about the future of the child, what they will become. When you make it impossible for this being/object/whatever you want to call it, it ends their chance to live. Also known as murder. When you have the seed of a tree, a little sprout if you can imagine and your brother or friend takes it out and smashes it what do you say? "You killed it!" Logically speaking, knowing where the "object" will soon become, you are killing a human. I am a woman, I can have a baby and I know what its like to have the option. Personal experiences have helped me understand the reasoning behind having an abortion but let me tell you something. In certain circumstances I see why it would be the best option (safety of the mother, incest, rape etc). And through this all I totally respect people having their own choices, but what in heavens name is this world coming to when we speak out more for our rain forests and our planet then our own children? I respect everyone's opinion and women who want to get an abortion have definatly have the right, but I dont believe that it should be made legal. I have the choice to rob, kill, walk around naked, listen to my music as loud as I want at four am, murder my own family, beat them, be really rude to a stranger, the options are endless, but...doesnt mean that people wont speak out for it because we personally feel it is wrong or infringing on life. If I see someone being picked on, you better believe i'll stand up for the underdog. If everyone makes fun of a girl who has mental problems doesnt mean I wont be her friend and be angry at those who make her feel inferior to them.
Going back to abortion I understand their fear of having a baby if they are single, or anything else. But its not a good idea at all. I wont keep quiet because I think it is very inhuman and sick. Not that the people are sick, but the action is sick.
I think that it should be illegal same as I think we should have speed limits. Just because people speed doesnt mean that we should make it legal. The penalty saves people, saves families, our own human race. No matter our flaws,we all deserve to be protected and helped. Maybe there are things that we need to do to show that we are willing to help those girls who dont have the means of taking care of a child. There is adoption and maybe we should pitch in and show them that we care. We can all work together. No one is alone and we should, instead of fighting about something, we should work together to see what the real problem is, work towards it without making it personal, and think of others rather than ourselves. Really, I don't see how anyone can lose when we all think of others, even if it is thinking about an unborn child/human/man/woman rather than ourselves, even if it is absolutely terrifying.
Just a few points
-"The scream" as you pointed out is actually the the baby opening its mouth and was only documented once, the fetus spends a lot of time with its mouth open. There was a movie a few years back documenting "the scream" but has now been passed of as 'bad science', babies at this point of development cannot sense danger, cannot move voluntarily and cannot feel pain. So its not very fair to use this argument.
-When you spoke about dependency on others to live, i think you misunderstood the pro-choice agenda. It is not because the baby depends on another that it is constituted as not alive (if that were the case old people would be the same way), It is because those who are pro-choice see the baby as not viable. The baby cant think, feel, move etc. (that doesn't mean its not alive...just pointing it out)
-I do not think that the church would ever pardon adultery if it became more socially acceptable (even to the point of ignorance). Nor do I think that the church is forgiving of abortion just because it is socially acceptable. Whats wrong is wrong.
-The only problem with your analogy is that people have an opinion. "We" may not know if it is pure murder or not (potential life vs life), we are still entitled to our own opinion until further light or knowledge is given.
-Just because one feels strongly against abortion does not mean we must support the republican party. Take Hugh Nibley, Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader and Personal friend of M. Russell Ballard), John L. Clarke (President of BYU-I for 30 years...and my grandfather), among many others---- They are/were very democratic. Yes that doesnt make it right, but i think it goes in showing that good lds members can exist on opposing parties. Especially in the case of the current election, neither candidate is in favor of banning abortion. Hugh Nibley argued (and I agree) that the democratic party upheld many LDS principals that the republican party did not.
-I will never deny what I know to be true, and I know the truth in my words as you do.
-Finally I think that what Mike has been trying to say is something to the effect of this quote in which I somewhate agree with--
"There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about. People of good will can exist on both sides. Nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ." -Obama
thank you for your correction-- I will edit my post so that it is more correct.
I really like your argument mike, that makes a lot of sense to me.
Before I continue I want to clarify that in such instances as rape, incest or seriously risky birth (for mother or child)-- I do think that the choice should remain legal-- I do believe in exceptions (so does the church actually). A woman who (i.e) is forced to face the possibility of death during the event of child birth because she was raped by her brother-- CERTAINLY, is MUCH different than a woman who had unprotected sex, and then didn't feel like dealing with the inconvenient consequences.
going on...
I guess that this is where I have a hard time though with not doing everything that I can within reason to stop people from having abortions.
A lot of people keep telling me that abortion isn't "baby murder" as I so strongly put it. I also keep hearing people tell me that even though they personally are against it that they feel that the woman should still have the right to choose.
Now as probably everyone knows--I personally feel that partial birth abortion is exactly the same thing as "baby murder", -- if the baby where to be delivered at the time of its abortion-- it would survive without the mother etc.
Now-- I know that many, many people in the world do not agree with me (do they disagree merely because the truth is inconvenient to them?), they somehow still think that the baby should not count as real person until it is outside of the mother, and therefore as the babies head is being cut off and its heart slows and stops-- all because some lady didn't want to be inconvenienced-- that, this shouldn't really count as murder-- Even though I personally think that it is the most twisted and sickest kind of murder of which a human could be capable of committing- and I feel, personally, that the only reason that their is not more consequence for it in Government or in the LDS church is because of the high social ignorance (which should come to no surprise to you or I) which leads to the high social acceptance (which also shouldn't surprise you or I). Going on, this view is MY view, and not everyone elses view-- that is why I came up with this analogy very carefully (at about 1:00 am the other day)- not to describe to my view, but to illustrate some points in such a way, that it would correlate with the views of others.
So here is the answer-key to the analogy.
The fact that their are two pills-- one deadly and the other harmless-- represents the ignorance on the part of all of us, myself included.
I do not KNOW that abortion is actually killing a person-- despite how strongly I feel about it-- I do not KNOW that it is. As far as my knowledge goes, it could be just as morally wrong to remove a large cyst with an active brain and a heart beat and an independent nervous system...
However, the point is-- I don't KNOW.
But... neither do they, neither do you, neither does ANYONE.
That given, the fact remains that killing a person because you don't want them anymore is defined as murder-- but we don't know that it is a person- but it must DEFINITELY be one of the following 2 choices then--
A). Murder.
B). Not Murder.
This is meaning in the two pills: one is murder, the other is not.-- do you follow?
They are identical looking because we DO NOT KNOW which it is-- A or B.-- but it is definitely A or B.
Going on. I chose a 10 second old baby because without the nourishment of the mother, it will most certainly die. The same as a baby that is inside of the womb will most certainly die without the nourishment of the mother.
I used this part because some argue that "because it relies on the mother for its life-- it shouldn't really count as a real person, and if your not killing a person-- your not committing a crime and so it shouldn't be illegal".
The fact that someone is dependent upon another for life, does not mean that they are not a real person-- all new born babies are not real people by this logic and are therefore according to this analogy, it would and should be perfectly just and legal to cut off all their heads sometime between the ages of 0-2.
Now I ask-- what is the significant difference then in these two scenarios that one should be illegal and the other legal. The mother of the 10 second old baby does not KNOW FOR SURE that she is going to kill anyone by administering the pill- there is a 50/50 probably that it wont be murder at all-- So why would you say that it is wrong when the exact same probability exists in cutting off the heads of partially-born babies? It is either murder or it is not-- correct? So why is it so wrong to let that woman place a 50% deadly pill in a newborns mouth?
I will tell you the reason if you will hear it, and i tell it to everyone-- because the thing that you innately know Mike, is that Abortion is wrong-- That is why you and other intelligent, humane people would NEVER do it. But the fact of the matter, Mike, is that not everyone in this world is as good of a person as you are, there are people in this world that-- if they could avoid the legal or social consequences of their actions would cut your head off if you inconvenienced them. If you don't believe me-- look at just about every dictator who has ever lived, when they were the law in and of themselves, and someone irritated them, they would cut their head off and not think twice about it-- because they were a "king" and they faced no penalties, no punishment for their murderous and sick actions. This is what many people (probably half or more) will do with too much power-- they will abuse it with no regard to anyone but themselves, and if they could make it legal and socially acceptable to kill their boss who fired them, they would, if they could make it socially acceptable to kill their annoying neighbor, they would. If they could make it legal or socially acceptable to kill Joseph Smith, they would. if they could make it legal and socially acceptable to kill Jesus Christ, they would-- and they wouldn't think twice about it. I believe that you will refuse to be like all those people who watched and let them do it, I believe that you will do the brave thing to stand up-- not just for yourself, but in the name of civility, truth, goodness, morality, justice, and the freedom to live-- and fight against those treacherous ones, who killed Ghandi, who killed Socrates, who killed Galileo, who killed Joseph, who killed Jesus-- you will not stand idly by but will if necessary physically fight to defend that which you feel inside of yourself to be right with all the strength that you have-- And not be among those who are actually going to vote to make it legal for people to have a 50% chance of murdering the most innocent and pure individual that the earth can receive? and WHY? because of the power of Rome who killed Christ? Because of the fear of the South who owned slaves; because of the fear of the French kings and their guillotines? because of fear of the Athenian government officials and their poison -- Who and What is stopping each of us from voting for what we know is right deep inside of ourselves-- that is what we need to ask? Just as everyone who has commented on this page has said to me-- All good people, all of you have told me that you would never have an abortion because you all strongly feel that it is wrong and in the same breath I dont believe that not one of you is willing to stand up for what you know is right. I myself will not be one of those who will not fight with the North because so many in the south feel that nothing is wrong with owning slaves, I will not be one of those who stood by and watched as they sentenced Socrates to drink poison because he taught truth, I will not be as Pilate who had the power to vote to spare Jesus life, but because he feared the people--permitted them to do as they wished-- KNOWING that it was wrong within himself. You and I know Mike, and so do many others-- Please-- let us not be as Pilate, let us stand up and vote for what we know is right because it is right, regardless of what the South or those in Jerusalem may say. Many who read this will mock me, and say, who does he think he is?-- I am a fool, but that does not change the truth. Some of you will say "what does he think this is?" "this is not slavery" "this is not Christs Crucifixion" "this is not the French Revolution" "this is not the execution of Socrates"-- But I tell you that it is. Someday we will look back and in the list of atrocities that the world will be held accountable for it will say "murder of the innocent" What happened in each of those circumstances was wrong-- there were those who killed there were those who watched. Just because a king doesn't feel that it is wrong to cut off someones head doesn't mean he should be allowed to do it. Just because the South feels that it is not wrong to own a slave, does no mean he should be allowed to do it. Just because there are people today-- in our midst who feel that there is nothing wrong with taking a 50% chance of murdering the most innocent of beings-- does not mean that it should be allowed for them to do it while we do nothing. Some day you may stand before such an innocent being, how will you feel when you know that you voted to permit his/her death. At that moment, you'll be willing to do anything to go back in time and use the great power that you have to make a difference. My words may feel harsh, but you know that I speak the truth, I beg you not to be offended but to soften your heart and feel that my words are true-- just as you feel and know that voting to allow anyone to take a 50/50 chance to murder is wrong. If you do not feel and know this, then alert me to my error, and I will apologize that you were offended, but I cannot take back the truth behind true words. I am nothing but a fool; mock me, ridicule me, call me names, insult me, humiliate me, point out my errors, slander me, kill me-- but please do not deny what you know to be true.
To the fence sitter--- and in regards to your 7th point I know that abortion is horrible and awful and I am not voting republican just because I would never vote for someone who would ever be in favor of it. But this is the thing for me that can make a huge difference. Like most other people, I don't vote for someone simply because they are republican or democrat. People are people and we need to look at their views. This is one of the views that I look at very seriously and when I look at Obama and his voting on abortion, I realize that I could never support him if he will vote against protecting the rights of unborn children. And that is exactly what he does.
In regards to abortion, I think it is one of the most heinous sins/choices that a woman can make. Obviously, I would never judge someone if they had to abort because of heath of mother or baby, or if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. But I think that even in these circumstances that the women should think of the child and allow it to live and others to adopt the child. A huge reason that adoption is so difficult $ and time wise, is because there are so many people killing babies. The women had the choice whether or not she had unprotected sex, and pregnancy is the "consequence" and the women need to be responsible for their consequences. Abortion is an immature and horrible out of something that people should take responsibility for. Abortion should never be a choice, because even though you say that those babies do not feel pain, can't think and other things during a pregnancy, they are still the potential for life. The baby, as potential life, should never have the decision of their life put in some one else's hands. I agree with the person above, it is not the people that are evil, it is the act (I have family members who have aborted their babies). I think that the act is horrible, and those of us who know truth and can see truth should stand up against it. You may know the truth in what you say, just as I do and do not agree. But honestly, I think that we will be help accountable for the ways that we vote, because if we are voting for someone & putting them in power who will then vote positively for abortion, we have (through voting for them) in a sense voted for abortion. Would you ever personally vote for abortion? I sure hope not. But by voting for someone who will, you are.
By the way, any one who says that Obama is not for abortion needs to do better homework and not simply accept everything that they hear on the news. Almost all of his voting (in regards to abortion) has been in favor of abortion and against the protection of unborn fetuses. I could never feel good voting for someone who would do that. Millions of INNOCENT babies are being murdered and why won't more people stand up for them? Sorry, I just feel very strongly about abortion.
--shocked voter
First off, i never said i was in favor of abortion. Secondly I agree, it is if anything abortion is killing the potential of life (as covered in my 4th point). The purpose of post was to point was to merely to point things out. Also, (i dont know if your last statement was pointed at me or not but) I didnt say obama was against abortion, i just quoted him... thats all. Now let me point something else out.
-A vote for Obama may be a vote towards abortion, but a vote towards McCain is a vote Towards states rights, which means that if a girl wanted an abortion she could simply cross the state border and enter the clinic and have an abortion. The states that would vote ban abortion are the states that already dont need it. So in essense McCains standpoint is not in opposition to abortion.
-Also as for voting records. There are many who oppose war. I personally think that war is wrong, because of that would Obama be the best choice?
...thus my "Fence Sitter" status
After some thought I realized that fence sitters don't necessarily see both sides "clearer" per say-- they just see both sides-- and I must say, the fence is a great place to sit and think, but a poor place do any work. -- I admire your thinking- cherish those days while you can, good men like you are men of action as well as men of thought, those fence sitting days are numbered-- but never be afraid to confess a mistake, hop that fence and go to work on the other side as many times as you need to in order to ensure that you are working on the right side. Goodness knows I am in a constant state of repentant flux for my many, many mistakes, and faults.
Now-- on with my comments on your post.
You said- (im using your suggestion of not rephrasing)--
"babies at this point of development cannot sense danger, cannot move voluntarily and cannot feel pain. So its not very fair to use this argument."
Read this article about whether or not partial birth babies feel pain.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/ai_n9419405
And just because a person can't sense danger (some people in comas, or sleeping, or suffering from a stroke cannot) or move voluntarily (same exceptions) is absolutely no excuse to say they are not a person. -- Even if someone cannot feel pain (there are such conditions in adults), that is no excuse to kill them-- though I think that the website will refute that for you in regards to partial birth abortion.
Going on.
-"When you spoke about dependency on others to live... It is because those who are pro-choice see the baby as not viable. The baby cant think, feel, move etc."
Yes, I agree that they think that the babies arent viable but disagree where you said that the baby can't think feel or move-- ultra-sounds, and the above link support that partial birth abortion babies are fully capable of feeling and moving-- and if so, then surely thinking as well. My argument is that they are not justified in their argument that the baby is not viable.-- It is viable or it is not viable-- and they do not KNOW it is not viable, and their arguments that it is permissible to kill them are weak to say the least.
"I do not think that the church would ever pardon adultery if it became more socially acceptable (even to the point of ignorance). Nor do I think that the church is forgiving of abortion just because it is socially acceptable. Whats wrong is wrong."
I love your black and white view, and I too feel the same way, I seek to eliminate grey, but church discipline is a little bit different than that- similar- but different (I think you've read the miracle of forgiveness-- if not it explains the difference). The church is in the world, and so it has to function work with the world somewhat-- (careful with that)-- read the reason that plural marriage was discontinued in the last part of the D&C. Also look up the subject of divorce-- The practice is wrong, but because of wickedness, there is no church discipline for it-- and the Lord allows it. So the question is: does the Church allow a "convenience-abortion" (no rape, danger, or incest involved). The answer is no, the Bishops handbook (ask your dad) specifically says no. When you are a District Leader on your mission, you will have an opportunity to do baptismal interviews-- There are three questions, the which, if they answer yes to any one of them, the declaration of their worthiness for baptism is no longer in your hands, and must go to a higher authority-- like a mission president, a 70 or an apostle. One of those questions is "have you ever had, or encouraged someone else to have an abortion". The baptism cannot take place until it has been cleared by church authority-- and the answer can be "no". Lastly, there was a letter read over the pulpit from the first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles which said that we are to oppose abortion legally etc.
Ask Bishop Holloway if you can read it.
"-The only problem with your analogy is that people have an opinion. "We" may not know if it is pure murder or not (potential life vs life), we are still entitled to our own opinion until further light or knowledge is given."
Yes, we are entitled to our own opinion, but my opinion will not shield me from the consequences of what decisions those opinions lead to-- neither does it erase the fact that abortion is either A:"killing a baby" or B:"not killing a baby". You might be tempted to say that there is a third option "killing something else" but that something else is "not killing a baby" so that is why there are two pills and not twelve-- the only item that is under dispute or matters is the lack of knowledge that it is not a baby.
"-Just because one feels strongly against abortion does not mean we must support the republican party."
That is an excellent argument and I totally agree with you. For example, what if the Republican party was in favor of slaughtering all Mormons, I might be tempted to be a Democrat... maybe... I still think I might rather that mormons were attacked if I had to choose-- at least I and other Mormons have the ability to defend ourselves-- unlike the innocent ones.
"Take Hugh Nibley, Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader and Personal friend of M. Russell Ballard), John L. Clarke (President of BYU-I for 30 years...and my grandfather), among many others---- They are/were very democratic. Yes that doesnt make it right, but i think it goes in showing that good LDS members can exist on opposing parties."
Yes they do. But I think that even the best of people make the worst of choices at times. --In my opinion, voting to legalize abortion is the worst of choices. Never base someones worst choice off of your capacity to make the best choice. Lets take the best decisions of the best people and pattern our lives after that. And I don't believe that you have any proof that any of those men ever voted to legalize abortion or intended that a government official ever be put into office who would support for abortion. (except harry reid... Ive got other issues with him) --Democrats don't always vote for a democrat, and republicans don't always vote for a republican. Democrat and Republican is more of a means of administration difference-- Abortion is not the distinguishing principle. A conservative Democrat would likely be very opposed to abortion, but believe in the trickle-up theory. On many subjects and in many ways I myself am a conservative democratic/Republican -- but the conservative part, to me, out-weighs the democrat/republican part, because of the importance of specific issues-- especially when 2-3 justices are considering retirement in the next 8 years.
Having conservative justices is more important than having conservative presidents because it is they who interpret the constitution.
"Especially in the case of the current election, neither candidate is in favor of banning abortion. Hugh Nibley argued (and I agree) that the democratic party upheld many LDS principals that the republican party did not."
Here is McCains stance in his own words: "I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it... As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position..."
And Obama's view is demonstrated well in his record: Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008
He also Voted against banning partial birth abortion--
even most democrats are against partial birth abortion. That means that they kill the baby VERY far along in the process-- to the point that you can kill it very close before the baby comes out.
So based on these sources, I have a hard time agreeing with what you said about McCain and Obama's views-- since they have been very clear about them.
"There is a moral dimension to abortion"
yes
"which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down."
sure
"I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about."
no, some people have abortions very easily- I know one personally.
"People of good will can exist on both sides."
yes, but people of good will were also pro-slavery, so that is irrelevant to the inherent goodness in the question of whether it is right or wrong to take a 50% chance of killing a baby. This statement got us nowhere in relation to the subject matter.
"Nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion."
And sometimes criminals who steal from a jewelry store (had unprotected sex) didn't want to have to shoot the police officer who told him to stop as he was getting away--(kill their babies because birth is inconvenient) but again, that is irrelevant to whether or not he should be punished or whether or not it is right-- so this statement gets us nowhere.
"How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ." -Obama
Yes they do, that's the point of determining whether it should be made illegal-- congratulations Obama you successfully used a lot of eloquent words to say absolutely nothing.
A lot of people think Obama is saying brilliant things when he is in fact saying nothing at all. It is unfortunate for me to see.
Sorry, I was just responding to some of the things you said, and I wasn't aiming everything I said to you. I should have made that more clear. I was just giving my stance on the matter (which sometimes can get too passionate) and didn't make it clear when I was addressing your comments and when I wasn't.
About abortion, I have a problem with someones choice of voting in opposition of protecting unborn babies rights (denying them medical attention when an abortion goes ary for example) and make it easy and without consequence to take a babies life just because of inconvenience. The state government point that you brought up is important, but what is more important is that the next president will be possibly be picking 2-3 court justices and they are the ones that decide on such issues as abortion. It is likely that the president will choose those who have their same view points, which would mean that with Obama's views for abortion we will have two huge forces (the president and the chief justice) who will be pro-abortion in their interpretation of that position.
In regards to the voting of the presidential candidate, we vote for people who will vote the way we want them to. If you feel strongly about anti-war, then you should vote for the candidate who will stand for that and vote for that when decisions are made. So yes, if I were you with the things (like war) that are important to you, I would vote for Obama. This is my reasoning (abortion among other things that are important to me) for voting for McCain. He will vote for things and stand for things that I feel strongly about. I hope that no one thinks that I think voting for Obama is a "sin" or wrong in any way. If he held some of my more important view points, I would vote for him too. Nor do I think being a democrat is a bad thing in any way (and I don't think anyone else here thinks that). I just have some different view points.
p.s. I think being a "fence sitter" is a very open minded stance, and I shared your status for a long time.
First off let me defend myself, and others whom those comments were unfair to.
Me:
"I admire your thinking- cherish those days while you can, good men like you are men of action as well as men of thought, those fence sitting days are numbered."
Perhaps "fence sitter" is not a good way of putting it for me, but I AM AN INDEPENDANT. And Let me be as I will be. Dont try to tell me I cannot have a certain opinion, or that it will change. My reasons for being independant are far deeper than not wanting to take sides, it is because I do not belive in black and white. In politics there is no "True". I therefore see the arguements as irrelavant and only argue when I see injustice towards one side. It is not fair to say, "I was once in this position and then I learned some more and now I am this". To quote a paper I wrote a long time ago "I regard humanity as a necessarily inclusive concept. I cannot regard myself as complex, as worthy of regard, as invested with meaning, And deny that of you. In order to consider my own thoughts to be worthy of consideration, I have to believe that the same is true of you." So do not disregard my opinion because it is still mine to have.
Others: "Never base someones worst choice off of your capacity to make the best choice."
You worded this well to the point where i cannot dispute it. But I can dispute what I felt you were incinuating. And what I felt you were incinuating was very rude and ignorant given the context of the portion quoted.
_____________
Okay first off when I made the statement that babies cannot sense danger, cannot move voluntarily and cannot feel pain, It was in reference to "The scream", not to partial-birth abortion, so taking a quote in context helps. The scream was documented on a baby that was eleven weeks along in pregnancy. So the scream was only observed at a time when it could not sense danger, move, or feel pain. So what I was saying is that the scream is not fair because the baby cannot even move volentairly or feel pain at that point. I was not saying that this is just cause for abortion, I was saying that the scream is debunct.
I dont think that my view is black and white and i still stand by it. I agree that the church must adapt, but the difference is adaptation to culture, and moral law. Its okay to adapt to culture, but moral law is always the same.
"Yes, we are entitled to our own opinion, but my opinion will not shield me from the consequences of what decisions those opinions lead to"
Perhaps; but I would be fully willing to voice my opinion on a candidate who is pro-choice if i belived he upheld more of values.
Realize that im not trying to justify an abortion. Im just trying to show that there are other people in this world. Many people have the opinion that abortion is killing nothing more than tissue (in the context of US policy Right now). In this view "killing something else" is still a valid claim. If the spirit hasnt entered teh body, its nothing more than tissue with the potential of life (as is every sperm and egg). You must understand this if you are going to argue that the church is only easy on it because of social accpetance (which i disagree with).
Also, yes i understand McCains and Obamas stance on Abortion. Realize that McCain is in favor of states rights (so the justices he picks will probably agree with him), which I will restate "which means that if a girl wanted an abortion she could simply cross the state border and enter the clinic and have an abortion. The states that would vote ban abortion are the states that already dont need it."
"A lot of people think Obama is saying brilliant things when he is in fact saying nothing at all. It is unfortunate for me to see"
I think thats quite rude and judgemental of you to say. I disagree with you 100%. You completely did not listen to what obama was saying. I would restate it but it would do no good, I think obamas words stand for themselves.
Let me just restress my view that abortion is wrong. Let me also just requote what i said earlier "(I) only argue when I see injustice towards one side." I just feel that there is alot of misunderstanding and feel the need to point out oposing views.
Wow, I was just trying to be nice. I was saying you are open minded, which is very rare these days. I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am glad that you are the way that you are and I think there is nothing wrong with that. I am not trying to change your mind, just have a friendly debate. Obviously, that was COMPLETELY misunderstood. I guess that is the problem with doing this over the internet & writing.
Really quick I wanted to say something to everyone so that there are no more misunderstandings: 1. I am not here to dissuade anyone from their belief or change beliefs, I am here to debate and understand 2. I do not think that one party/candidate is better than another.
so from what I have seen here, no one disagrees that abortion is morally wrong, in their own personal opinion. So while we could continually discuss what others say about "not a life yet" and what not, what I think is the main discerning factor between opinions is whether or not it should be legal. If im wrong and missed something in someone elses post, i apologize. So, that being said, the next logical step as I see it, is a point that Richard brought up to me, in a way. Is my stand point of pro choice as bad as being pro abortion? Or on the flip side, is Richards stand point of making abortion illegal mixing religion and state to much? To clarify, I am not LDS, so while I may share some moral values, arguments stating the churchs view point I tend to skip over. I just feel that making it illegal is not the right decision. To many "what ifs" and unknowns. To over-simplify, where would the woman who is pregnant by incest go to get her abortion done if it were illegal? Would she have to start filling out paperwork in triplicate? Then wait for our quick working and sympathetic government to get back to her? So while I respect your desire to make as much as possible black and white, I just don't believe that possible in politics.
I was up till 3:00 AM thinking last night-- and spent all of this morning thinking. I have some huge thoughts to analyze and I am beginning to see things in a very different way.
"My reasons for being independant are far deeper than not wanting to take sides, it is because I do not belive in black and white. In politics there is no "True". I therefore see the arguements as irrelavant and only argue when I see injustice towards one side."
I have thought deeply about this statement... I agree with all of it exactly-- except where you said that you see arguments as irrelevant... However, the rest of your position-- though shortly stated-- is VERY POWERFUL to me. Your argument for being Independent is so powerful and so compelling that I find that it outweighs my argument for being Republican-- I won't go into all the details here-- I am notorious for writing too much as it is.
I have conversed with my wife about these reasons as well, and she was able to see my reasoning immediately because the reason was so self evident. Thank you so much for assisting me by sharing your views firmly, directly and without reservation. I am compelled to change whenever I find a superior shade of gray. For now, I can no longer be republican-- I am now Independent Unless someone can come up with a superior shade of gray (its got to be a lighter shade) than is found for my reasons for being Independent.
"You worded this well to the point where i cannot dispute it. But I can dispute what I felt you were incinuating. And what I felt you were incinuating was very rude and ignorant given the context of the portion quoted."
Im not certain what you mean-- especially if you felt it was very rude and ignorant. I actually didn't mean to insinuate anything at all-- I will reword what I meant to say more directly.--
My opinion is that if any of those people voted pro-choice, that I believe this was a inferior shade of gray in judgment on their part. (Mitt Romney was pro-choice and he openly admitted that he hadn't seen the consequence of what he had chosen to support, and so he said-- I was wrong-- and changed his position) I firmly believe that good men can make mistakes in judgment, that does not make them "bad men" it just means that we have the opportunity to learn from them and do better in that area.
-- now-- I don't know why they voted as they did, and I wish I could ask them, but I cannot.
"Okay first off when I made the statement that babies cannot sense danger, cannot move voluntarily and cannot feel pain, It was in reference to "The scream", not to partial-birth abortion, so taking a quote in context helps. The scream was documented on a baby that was eleven weeks along in pregnancy. So the scream was only observed at a time when it could not sense danger, move, or feel pain. So what I was saying is that the scream is not fair because the baby cannot even move volentairly or feel pain at that point. I was not saying that this is just cause for abortion, I was saying that the scream is debunct."
ahhh, okay-- I see your point, thank you for the clarification
"I dont think that my view is black and white and i still stand by it. I agree that the church must adapt, but the difference is adaptation to culture, and moral law. Its okay to adapt to culture, but moral law is always the same."
I agree with you. I guess I should probably look up articles to see exactly what the churches stance based off more than my previous here-say.-- Thank you for that homework assignment.
you: "Perhaps; but I would be fully willing to voice my opinion on a candidate who is pro-choice if i belived he upheld more of values."
me: As would I, but "more values" isn't the word I would choose, I would have to say "values which collectively outweighed the opponents values in strength"-- but same concept.
"Realize that im not trying to justify an abortion."
Thank you for clarifying that, I think I see better what you are trying to do after analyzing your platform more carefully.-- I think you are seeking to justify "people" not "arguments", so that I don't see them as murderers. That is noble and good of you and I agree with doing that now as well.-- I dont see the people as murders, I see the people as mistakenly killing.... Hmmm maybe it would be better to use this analogy...
A man comes to you and says "There are two large card-board boxes in the next room-- here is a gun-- You must shoot one of these boxes with this gun-- if you dont shoot one, you will experience intense physical pain beyond anything you have ever experienced and face massive rejection and unkindness from all of society, and have to pay lots of money-- and possibly die or be damaged for the rest of your life-- by the way, Some people think that there might be a person in one of the boxes-- but we don't really know, and there is no way to really find out"
-- That would shows how it is unfair for me to call that person a murderer, even if I myself wouldn't do it...so, you are correct. That is good logic and it makes sense. I still don't think that, this is viable justification for taking the risk by permitting it to be legal, but I do see how calling someone a baby murderer is overly harsh in this circumstance-- thank you for helping me to see that.
you:"You must understand this if you are going to argue that the church is only easy on it because of social accpetance (which i disagree with)."
me:-- Hmmm, I think I made that social acceptance argument wrongly-- I thank you for bringing it to my attention and retract that part of my argument.
"Also, yes i understand McCains and Obamas stance on Abortion. Realize that McCain is in favor of states rights (so the justices he picks will probably agree with him), which I will restate "which means that if a girl wanted an abortion she could simply cross the state border and enter the clinic and have an abortion. The states that would vote ban abortion are the states that already don't need it."
That makes good sense to me-- but I need to do more homework-- again, excellent argument!
"I think thats quite rude and judgemental of you to say. I disagree with you 100%. You completely did not listen to what obama was saying. I think obamas words stand for themselves."
You are right absolutely, that was rude and judgmental, and I take it back. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I was attempting to discredit Obama because of his stance on abortion, and that is not fair. What he said was perfectly reasonable once I eliminated by bias. He was merely saying that good people are pro-choice and good people are pro-life. That is a 100% correct statement, and so your 100% disagreement with me makes total sense.
"Let me just re-stress my view that abortion is wrong. Let me also just requote what i said earlier "(I) only argue when I see injustice towards one side." I just feel that there is alot of misunderstanding and feel the need to point out oposing views."
Again-- that is such a compelling argument for being Independent- it blows me away. Thank you for helping me to see clearer. I am still opposed to legalizing abortion, but I see that I need to refrain from calling pro-choice people "baby killers"- despite what i think it may be-
"I would restate it but it would do no good,"
In my opinion that was the most unfair and incorrect statement that you have made to me. Despite the passion, length and firmness of the positions that I make-- to assume that restating them to me will do no good is to say that I am close minded-- Though I may not appear to you to be open-minded, you are absolutely and completely wrong-- I can prove this to you. Just because I state my opinions openly and freely without reservation and refute arguments when I don't think that they apply or are insignificant or weak, does not mean that I am closed minded and that restating things to me will do no good, I may be a fool, I may be ignorant, I may be many things, but despite how I may sound, I DO open my mind to possibilities, even if they scare me or I hate them-- opening my mind to something doesn't mean that I agree with it in the least or don't think that it is absurd after my evaluation. -- Richard
Any one who might be interested in what the church's position is on abortion, see the October 2008 copy of the Ensign and the Article "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless" by Elder Russell M. Nelson on page 32.
Mike-- your assessments are awesome-- you broke that down to the real issue at hand based on our beliefs. And I think that based on your beliefs you are right on track, your logic predicated upon your beliefs is perfect and unbreakable as far as I can see- I literally can't think of any refutation to give it without changing the subject completely and talking about the church's positions or refuting your beliefs-- which isn't the subject for you. If I had your beliefs, I would vote pro-choice too and feel utterly confident in my logic regarding the issue. If you want to debate whether or not the church's positions are logical or not, or whether your beliefs are right or wrong --that is another debate I would love to have. but that is another debate.
Forgive me for not reading the whole article first, but I have to try to post things as I come across them or I'll probably forget them and/or get confused.
In answer to the first "anonymous" question of "who am I to choose for someone else?" You are a voter. That is who you are to chose for someone else.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you have absolutely no problem choosing for someone else. For instance, if the vote was open to you, wouldn't you have no problem voting in favor of keeping the murder of you and/or your loved ones illegal? So then we see that it's absolutely not a question of choosing for someone else. It's a question of what you do or don't have a problem with someone else doing.
Wow-- Ben, that makes a lot of sense. I agree absolutely.
In response to the 2nd "anonymous" comment.
Since when is murder, or "abortion" as you put it, a constitutional right?
Conversely, murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse." Also, according to the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act", late term abortions are unlawful. Therefore, late term abortions are murder, by definition.
Some might try to argue that there is justification or excuse. However, if there were justification or excuse, legally, then such abortions would not be unlawful. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
Still, some might try to argue that the infant is not a human being. That's a completely valid argument, in my opinion. Next time a mother is in the hospital giving birth to an elephant, or Bigfoot, or a UFO, please feel free to cut the head (or cockpit, in some cases) right off with no complaint from me. However, while humans still give birth to humans, late term abortion is legally defined as murder.
I know I'll get dog-piled on for this one, but I plan not to respond unless someone actually comes up with a logical challenge to one of my statements. For clarifications sake, "No it's not! I know legal-type people who disagree with you!" does not challenge any of my statements.
So, please feel free to get emotional and/or adamantly disagree all you want. What I said still stands until you challenge it logically, which is entirely possible. Believe it or not, I have been known to admit when I'm wrong. That said, I don't usually go down easily.
Mike, great to hear from ya, cuz. You said "I.. don't feel it's my right to impose my perspective on someone else." What if someone had a gun to the head of someone you loved? Wouldn't you feel that it was your right to impose your perspective on someone else?
In response to "fence sitters see both sides clearer":
Your statement about the "silent scream" is completely irrelevant. That wasn't part of his argument at all. That was part of his description of the problem.
Your second statement has me very puzzled. "The baby can't think, feel, move, etc." ... What are you talking about? Abortion is something that happens to ALIVE babies. A baby that "can't think, feel, move, etc." would be DEAD. After reading such a baffling comment I don't feel inclined to read this post further at this time.
Hey Ben, hope all is well with you. OK, if someone was holding a gun to my head, yes I would possibly be inclined to disagree with his moral decision, but I won't know that until the time comes. Seriously, while I see the point your making, I have a different stand point on abortion than a black and white murder, or at least im not sure that it is. I do of course think its wrong beyond many other atrocities committed, but I'm not SURE that it's murder. Late term abortion, or whatever it's called, I feel is most definately murder, but earlier? Not sure one way or the other. My statement on not imposing my perspective on others means that while I believe it to be wrong, others may not. You could argue that my feelings on this are spiritual or religious. Last I checked, there was freedom of religion in this country, kinda. Also, while this seems heartless, I do not mean it in that way. The baby, if a soul IS in fact already in it at the time of abortion, goes right back up to heaven. So if i'm not worried about the soul of the baby "killed" and the mothers feelings/beliefs don't classify it as murder, than who am I protecting? That a bit simplified from my whole feelings on the issue, but close enough. Also, I was the first "anonymous" post up top, I hadnt realized I could leave a name yet. So my statement of "who am I to choose for someone else?" is along the same lines. "I may not agree with your opinions, but I will defend to the death you're right to have them."
Hmmm-- I like the way your mind works Mike, even if I dont agree with your conclusions... Im going to see if I can find someway to really dive in and find anything...so the baby is okay-- I mean it goes straight to heaven-- and thats okay... the mother is only killing out of ignorance if she is killing at all-- by your view... hmmm so whats the skin off of your back then, right? whats the skin off of anybodies back-- everybody ends up happy-- baby in heaven, mother in ignorance, and us-- well, even though we dont agree with her at all in that decision to kill the baby-- well... we feel...kinda okay... because we allowed them to do it without putting up a fight... yucky... I could live with the baby-heaven thing, I could even, maybe live with the ignorant woman thing-- but I have a hard time with not standing up for the babies rights... not to be like the Lorax for unborn children or anything, who nobody else seems to be defending them, heck why dont I be their champion-- they never did anything wrong, they never hurt anybody-- child birth hurts really bad but not as bad as feeling like you might have killed somebody right?- some people will tell you that is a load of tripe that people are ignorant--some people say that any human being with a brain or a soul could put two and two together and know that abortion is wrong,-- but they say the girls just do it because society makes her feel like a dirty slut if she goes and has the baby-- all of her friends reject her, the people at her church look down their noses at her, and she is scared to death of having this incredibly painful birthing process-- and-- from what I hear, many women NEVER recover emotionally from the violence that they caused-- the rest of their lives they cant get over the fact that they had life in them and they killed it, a lot of them deal with self-esteem issues and spend many nights crying and wishing they hadn't done such a thing- but most of these abortions are done when the girl is only about 15-18, kids at that age have been scientifically proven to lack the ability to see the consequence of their actions properly-- they aren't trusted to drink, they are hardly trusted to drive-- but yet our society will trust them to make a decision that causes something to die-- (something that isnt an animal-- something that is human if it is anything) and causes them emotional trauma for the rest of their lives? They can't have some beer but they can end the life of an innocent one growing inside of them?... anyways, thats another view, I haven't thought it through all the way, but its worth throwing it out there, let me know what you think.
who am i to end slavery-- what is worse-- to have a war and kill a bunch of people-- or to let slavery continue, nobody dies that way, and heck-- since you dont believe in slavery yourself and they dont think its bad, who are you to choose for someone else-- best not to get involved, let them do what they want. Slaves at least could defend themselves somewhat right. Back then they argued whether blacks were real people too-- said they weren't the same as white folks. Would you have fought in that war?... kill, death and destruction or slavery-- and staying neutral.
Im too much of a rabble rouser to sit around while there is injustice-- I think Id go get my gun and say "let those slaves go or Ill blow your friggen knee caps out you psycho slave owner!"
I get too riled up. Im definitely the revolutionist type-- if I see injustice I have to do --something.
like start a blog or something-- can't just sit around with my mouth shut and a half eaten bag of dorritos at my side... aaaahhhh, what interesting subjects-- the greater justice-- the greater choice...
Hey mike, read "the churches position on Polygamy" on my Blog-- the VERY first post... interesting argument they make, you'd like, its just a good argument. -- let me know what you think if this
Mike, I see what you're saying and I agree with you for the most part. I'm not 100% sure about very early term abortion, although I do feel pretty sure. After the first 2 weeks the baby has it's own nervous system. So at that point, the "it's my body" thing is just totally ridiculous. YOU can't feel the pain. YOU'RE not being killed. Even if you were killing YOURSELF, and somehow letting the baby live, this would STILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL. So the whole "I can do what I want with my body" thing is ludicrous. NO YOU CAN'T do what you want with your body, when it's illegal and immoral and adversely affects others.
Furthermore, I, personally, am VERY concerned about the soul of the baby. What if the baby is just like you and me and isn't ready to go back up to heaven yet? What if the baby wants to come down to earth and experience life? What if he or she wants to make friends and have a family? What if those friends or family include me or you? What if the baby wants to help others and change the world and cure cancer and bring world peace? What if, like you and me, the baby doesn't want do die? Who are we to take away the babies CHOICE and RIGHT to LIFE?
The reason I'm focusing mostly on late term abortion, is because it is included in abortion, and as far as I'm aware, the term "pro-choice" isn't just for one or two specific types of abortion. It applies to all types of abortion, as far as I've been told. Moreover, Mr Hussein has specifically come out and said that he supports PARTIAL BIRTH abortion. How could anyone other than the Devil himself say that they support slaughtering infants during the most tender beginning of their precious life? As you pointed out as in the pill analogy, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS! Please slow down and read the following points carefully. Please carefully consider what I'm about to say. If giving birth is somehow dangerous to the mother, then that danger would only be MULTIPLIED GREATLY by cutting the baby up DURING THE BIRTH! If the mother already had to go through a traumatic rape, and a traumatic pregnancy, then why would ANYONE suggest that she should be INFINITELY MORE TRAUMATIZED by having her own precious child SLAUGHTERED right in front of her during it's first moments of entering this world? THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS!
I've heard many stories of girls who have been lulled by the pro-abortion values of personal choice, etc, and pressured by society into having an abortion. They were young and just had very little understanding of the situation. So, they agreed to it. Then, when the cold metal blades were entering their body and ripping their child apart, they suddenly realized what has happening. It was the most painful and traumatizing experience of their life. I almost feel like crying just thinking about the terrible feelings of absolute horror, far beyond description, that they must have gone through. Needless to say, they are now very adamantly pro-life. I'm not just pro-life for the babies, I'm pro-life for those poor tender young girls who DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE!
I know there are good people on both sides. I personally feel very strongly that any decent person who really understood the situation in depth, and the immense gravity of what is happening during an abortion would be adamantly pro-life.
I mean think about it. What do we have to lose from keeping our current bans on late-term abortion? Well, we won't have mother's dieing while giving birth because instead of attending to their needs the doctor turned his attention to murdering their child. Many parents on the adoption list, waiting years for a child to love, will be filled with joy when their hoped and prayed for child isn't brutally executed. We will keep the number of young women being severely traumatized by abortions at it's current rate, comparatively much lower, etc...
I know you agree with me, Mike, as you've already stated that you feel that this type of abortion would most definitely be murder. The other day when Richard came over, I told him that I was probably going to vote Obama. Then he told me about Obama's recently revealed stance on abortion. Given the strong feelings that you can see that I have, I was forced to change my mind. Given the strong feelings that I would guess that you also have, I hope that you'll open your mind and your heart and ponder and pray about this one. Whoever wins this election will probably be appointing 2-3 supreme court justices. This means that if Hussein wins, we'll probably see the legalization of what you and me both agree is most definitely murder.
Alright Rich, you've caused me to second guess myself, and I applaud you. Maybe I am trying to be neutral on a moving train, and maybe I am worried of offending other beliefs to the point of denying my own, but I worry about imposing something, which is still a belief, as a law. Unless someone can prove to me that early term abortion is in fact murder, I cant condone making it illegal. Not just convince me, because I already am, but PROVE it. Just because I feel it to be wrong, doesn't mean it is. If we as a country start imposing laws that are based on spiritual beliefs, than an all Christian america is not to far behind. And that is NOT ok with me.
Ben, I was absolutely unaware of Obama's stance on partial birth abortion. If that is true, and I'll have to check, than that's another thing for me to think about tonight.
Mike-- I just have to say something before I go on-- you are one of the most open-minded people I know, and I strive to be like you. I have NEVER heard anyone listen and actually consider this logic before when their stance was previously pro-choice. A week ago I was talking to someone and I brought up some of these same points and rather then come back with their reasoning or analyzing the logic and situation-- they started insulting me! OPENLY CALLING ME NAMES! They couldn't defend against the pure logic and goodness inherent in the position (which you have seen so easily) so they attacked the way in which I wrote-- said it was "feminine", then they said I was "sick" and said "you must not have any friends". It freaked me out and made me lose confidence in mankind.
No matter what you conclude-- you have taught me something, and restored my hope in humanity-- Thank you.
your concerns make a lot of sense "If we as a country start imposing laws that are based on spiritual beliefs, than an all Christian america is not to far behind. And that is NOT ok with me." -- again, I like the way your mind works... let me think about this... I believe that I am just as opposed to having an all christian america as you are-- in fact that idea is exactly contrary to one of my core beliefs which states
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
I would (and if it ever comes to it WILL) stand right beside you with a weapon in my hand, fighting for freedom of religion and die for that right in anyone else. As I would do the same for someones right to have the freedom to live, even if there was a possibility that it could be killing someone, I would fight for them and defend them the, the best i could, to ensure that they have the same freedom and life that I have the right to enjoy. Here are those rights:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I don't care that this came out of the constitution, only in as much as I may agree or disagree with what it says. To which-- I agree with completely... in other words "FREEDOM!!!".
Now the argument on the other side of those who are screaming this same chant of "freedom" is that you are removing someones freedom to give freedom to someone else. -- as in 90% of all abortions it is taking away the freedom of the 15-18 year old girl, who feels pressured by society to do something that after-wards she really wished she hadn't of done, but felt so stressed and scared and alone that she couldn't see far into the future, to see that this choice is one that was irreversible-- she cannot put that same life and person back into her again, she was pressured by her boyfriend and best friends and parents (to avoid social embarrassment) to have it killed-- but once it was dead... that persons life ended, and could not be given back.
who will protect this girl who now is facing the oppressing judgments of her friends and community and angry parents if she starts to show a beautiful pregnant tummy-- our society is so sick, even members of my own church look down their noses at a teenage pregnant girl out of wedlock-- I and my wife think that she is a beautiful and glorious thing, because of her courage and determination to make it right-- to not end a mistake with an act of horrific violence, but to face her fears and think of someone else-- for parents who are longing and weeping every night to have a child of their own. My wife and I have had three miscarriages, these days in order to adopt, you can go on a waiting list for possibly 7 years for each, and then be lucky if you can have 2 children tops, yet despite the millions of parents who want and cannot have children there are millions of abortions performed each year-- 90% of which are these scared girls who society pushes to have sex and then strongly pressures them to get an abortion so that "the family isn't embarrassed" or the "boyfriend doesn't get in trouble"
The Judicial branch has made it easier to have an abortion than to get a drivers license. That is something that DEFINITELY needs to be addressed.
The problems are in our culture-- people being too judgmental and having no sanctity for human life-- the federal government will fund anyone to have a free abortion... what if we all got our heads together and thought of some options that worked better for everyone and didn't involve senseless acts of infanticide? what if the teenage girl went to a place where they helped her and talked to her, and fed her, and provided lodging for her, and gave her a good atmosphere to stay-- and then gave her the option of meeting with some parents who are desperate to adopt, and she could have an option of staying in their home with them if she needed a loving safe place to stay-- and the family could build a bond with the child's mother, and it could be this sweet and beautiful thing! I almost cry at the thought that instead our society moves so quickly to violence as the solution. I don't care what my religion or anyone else's religion is, I see that girl and the life that she has made as beautiful and glorious-- and I personally would give up my own life if it meant that the life inside of her could live and breath and love and be loved and have a family of its own rather than everyone hating and rejecting her and telling her that she should have the child killed.
what a better place this world could be if we would not encourage and permit senseless violence. This solution is the most peaceful solution, it is the situation that ensures the highest degree of freedom to all involved, and it is the only choice that the girl and the child can live with.
So then we must ask ourselves is this question of religion at all-- for me, it is not, even if I had no religion at all, and just wanted peace, freedom and justice-- this would be the only choice that could be made, which would satisfy all three.
You stated something about ensuring and knowing positively that it was a viable person before defending it. i tend to believe in erring on the side of non-violence and highest freedom. I believe in innocent until proven guilty-- or in this case: viable until proven unviable-- the punishment is too great to sentence and to violent to inflict unless it can be absolutely proven without any doubt, that it is not viable before anyone should come near the child to kill it.
But, the danger of of having another "religion-ruled state" as we learn in history is so dangerous a thought, that I commend you for making careful consideration and notice of this possibility. Again you make a lot of sense to me in the things that you bring up.
Mike, please excuse me if my words come across as harsh sometimes. It's difficult, and I think sometimes inappropriate, to speak passively about something that you feel strongly about. Moving on.
I think you'll find that every single law we have is based on a belief, and that most of these beliefs are based on Christian values. "Thou shalt not steel, thou shalt not kill" etc. That's what holds this country together and makes it as livable as it is. The most central and important of these beliefs is that of the right to life. When this belief is challenged it is up to those of us who can see right from wrong to say with our votes "I believe in a child's right to live." If we don't where will this country be headed? Where will the world be headed? Will it be a place where we stand by and watch as infants are slaughtered?
As far as proving that early term abortion is murder, it has already been proven thousands, if not millions, of times. This may sound ridiculous at first, but it's easy to understand when you understand the definition of what it means to prove something. If you look it up on dictionary.com or anywhere else, you'll find that what it essentially means is to convince someone. If you think about it, no other definition would make sense. So, what matters is what YOU believe. Because that is what has been proven to YOU. There is no one PROOF that works for everyone, regardless of the topic. If you feel that baby murder shouldn't be legal, then it's your choice to vote accordingly. That's what the vote is there for, isn't it?
I was one of the first to comment on this debate and unfortunately I have been so busy with work I haven't been participating... I apologize! In that case, I want to hit on a few different points made throughout the conversations. I just read through it and made notes on the points I wanted to discuss further so I'm sorry that I don't have specific quotes from specific people.
First of all, someone argued about the idea of murder and how it is not a constitutional right, and rather protecting the innocent fetus is protecting its constitutional rights of the right to choose life. Okay. Pro-Choicers do not consider the constitutional right that we are pushing to be murder. Obviously that's not a right of anyone (unless you support capitol punishment where you do put murder in the hands of others, as a choice...). Pro-Choicers push the right of privacy. Now there is no amendment that straight up says "right to privacy". Rather, the right of privacy lives in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, as well as the preamble of the Constitution that someone previously stated. The next point was that this "freedom" of murder (right to privacy) takes away the right of the child to life. Many rights and freedoms work exactly this way. Take the freedom of speech as an example. The First Amendment prohibit government agencies to constrict your right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, protest, etc. However, because we have that freedom, we can as average citizens (and not government agency) constrict that freedom of others. For example, Walmart refuses to sell certain music that may have controversial language in it, thus constricting freedom of speech for that artist. Media sources cut and edit pieces and use only certain journalists with certain standpoints... restricting speech. Unfortunately, the right and choice to privacy affects the fetus. It is a different situation, having your right to express your opinion is not as drastic as your right of life, but, of course, that's up for debate, as we have been doing, whether the fetus at that time is alive and can feel and has that right.
And as for murder itself, I find that a lot of opinions argue that abortion is okay in uncomfortable situations. How can you call abortion murder in one case and not the other? If a girl was raped and didn't want the child abortion is okay, but it's not if someone was irresponsible and doesn't want the child. To me the same thing is happening. Abortion is abortion. It doesn't change because of circumstance. If you think it's murder in one situation, it's murder in the other. Therefore I believe your argument is flawed. Just to be clear, I believe that a complete ban on abortion is just plain scary, but I'm just trying to make the point that the whole "murder" argument is flawed if you believe in exceptions.
Another thing is that many have argued using partial-birth abortion because, as has been claimed, Pro-Choicers believe in it all - up to the point of partial abortion. I completely disagree with that claim. Just like Pro-Lifers disagree with abortion up until a certain point (emergency exceptions), Pro-Choicers believe in choice up until a certain point (the viability of a child).
Lastly, there is a lot of talk about the pressures of society. I don't know why everyone is claiming that every young girl who has an abortion feels guilty and sick about it. I'm sure many of them do, I most certainly would, but not all feel that way. And you say they are pressured by society into doing something they don't want to do. Again, I'm sure that happens but that's not every case. Others make that decision on their own and believe it to be a correct one. The simple fact is that Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned any time soon. Let's face that fact and move on with the REAL ISSUES! Societal pressure is it! You are all correct! We need to make teen pregnancy a socially acceptable thing because hey, it happens. We cannot let teens think that they will be shunned from their families and churches if they have a baby. That's when they need the most support from the people they count on. So attack that problem first. And attack the number of unwanted pregnancies too - let's get those down. Richard (and McKenna) you say that you can't sit around without doing anything about this issue. My goodness I can't agree with you more! When I'm passionate about something I put my time into it. So let's do this together! Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers attack societal pressures and unwanted pregnancies. It might mean teaching that in health classes at schools... not only teaching abstinence. We do live in a difficult world put there are ways to work around it.
Mr. Anonymous-- your arguments were very logical and reasonable to me and they make a lot of sense, to me, you have demonstrated a great ability to use reason- and your reasoning has caused me to go and re-access my logic-- especially one particular point that you made, which I will get to later.
"Okay. Pro-Choicers do not consider the constitutional right that we are pushing to be murder. Obviously that's not a right of anyone (unless you support capitol punishment where you do put murder in the hands of others, as a choice...).
referring to connecting abortion to Capital punishment, I would say "If the child has committed any crime-- punish it". But seeing as the child goes through a few years or so of not being able to speak-- I cant see how it will be able to defend itself against people who want it dead-- nor do I think that the child has committed any crime worthy of death or any other legal punishment.
going on...
I do understand that pro-choicers may not consider it murder to kill the baby, that is why I am not getting the rifle out of my room and marching down to pro-choicers houses and blowing their knee caps off and declaring war to overthrow the laws of the government-- instead I try to reason with them first-- hoping that they will see that what they are doing is unjust and that since the baby cannot defend itself, we the people who vote must ensure that justice is had on their behalf-- just as slaves could not vote, and I would have voted on their behalf.
As pro choicers cannot prove that it is not a viable human being-- and I cannot prove that it is a viable human being (though I dont know what else we would call a growing baby)-- I think that we should say "innocent until PROVEN guilty-- or in this case, human, until PROVEN- inhuman. In my opinion when they didn't give blacks rights because they weren't really "people" (or so they argued) in the same sense that whites are "people"-- therefore a white man who owns the slave should have the right to kill his slave, or torture him or do anything that he wants to him is wholly unjust. Back then-- they argued that we couldn't PROVE that they were real full people in the same way that whites were. Same as pro-choicers argue that unborn infants aren't real people in the same way that born infants are real people. I say-- If you cannot PROVE to me that they are not real people-- I will fight and vote for their protection and rights, saying that you cannot justify denying them their rights as a person-- which includes the right to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness-- until you have proven to me that they are not a person. The rights of the girls privacy do not override the right of the unborn infant-- just as a slave owners right to "property" and "privacy" did not justify him to kill and torture his slaves without the intervention of the government to step in and say that the acts committed were unjust and therefore should be illegal.
Up until the war between the North and South, the South still maintained that slaves where not fully real people, the same as whites and that therefore they should not have the same rights and the white people did-- they also argued that it was their own right to privacy to do with their property as they saw fit-- and since they had purchased their slaves with their own money-- they were theirs. --this was all based on the premise that you cannot PROVE that they are a real viable person-- same as a white man.
The situations are not exactly the same, but similar enough to show the injustice in the argument.
-- If you wish to create some terms by which we define "human" vs "inhuman" I would be open to that debate-- But I think that is another debate, and one which scientists cannot prove that an unborn infant is "inhuman" and neither and they PROVE that it is human... okay so maybe they can prove that it is human...hmmm... okay that logic didnt follow... maybe thats why I think that must be why I defend the innocent ones who cannot speak and defend themselves. -- Is the cause of the "pro-choicers so noble?" What are they defending?-- something far worse than slavery I am afraid. Sad that the sanctions on human life that our government once held have been taken away and twisted slogans such as "pro-choice" have been the gasoline in the vehicle that has led to their ultimate destruction. -- This is my personal belief: The people of this nation will be held accountable before God for the murders which they have committed, just as those who had the capacity to stop such atrocities will be held accountable for voting that the babies be permitted to die at the hands of ignorant or wicked individuals because of their voting.-- that is a spiritual feeling-- I can only back it up with teachings of apostles and my own testimony and ability to reason properly.
The only thing that I can say regarding the freedom of speech or privacy is that the same freedom be given to the babies before they are silenced without being able to speak to defend themselves-- It would be equally just to hold a trial while I am asleep in my bed, convict me as guilty of murder, and worthy of death, and shoot me in the back of the head- all while I am asleep and unable to defend myself. Mr. Anonymous-- if you were so sentenced to death in your sleep-- I would defend you. To mothers all over the world whether you have had an abortion or not-- If you were asleep in your bed and sentenced to death-- I would defend you cast my vote to let you live.
Going back to the right of privacy-- I think the baby deserves to have a little bit of privacy too down there in the womb-- I mean gosh-- the poor little guy is in there trying to grow with all his might, and all these people keep poking metal things inside his little womb-home and cutting his head off!-- hows that for the right to privacy?
If someone were trying to do that to his mom-- I would be all over that, give the poor gal some right to privacy!
NOW-- this next argument is the most powerful argument to me-- I really like the logic here and I really had to change my thinking to accommodate for it... I still don't know how to answer it-- EXCELLENT ARGUMENT!!!
"And as for murder itself, I find that a lot of opinions argue that abortion is okay in uncomfortable situations. How can you call abortion murder in one case and not the other? If a girl was raped and didn't want the child abortion is okay, but it's not if someone was irresponsible and doesn't want the child. To me the same thing is happening. Abortion is abortion. It doesn't change because of circumstance. If you think it's murder in one situation, it's murder in the other. Therefore I believe your argument is flawed. Just to be clear, I believe that a complete ban on abortion is just plain scary, but I'm just trying to make the point that the whole "murder" argument is flawed if you believe in exceptions.
I WAS WRONG!! You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! just because someone is raped DOES not give them the right to KILL!! that is ridiculous! I have never seen that so clearly as you have stated it-- thank you! I TOTALLY agree with you-- killing a baby because you were raped is totally and wholly unjust. The only instance where it is right to kill would be as a punishment for a serious crime (even then) or as a kind of "self defense". I can't debate against your pure logic.
--but Im afraid that doesn't mean that it isnt killing a human, as you stated-- thats back to the "is it viable argument" still-- GREAT ARGUMENT-- I take my hat off to you and openly admit I was wrong-- and my thinking has changed.
Mr. Anonymous said: "Another thing is that many have argued using partial-birth abortion because, as has been claimed, Pro-Choicers believe in it all - up to the point of partial abortion. I completely disagree with that claim."
You are right, and I agree with you-- most pro-choicers that I have heard of are adamantly against partial birth abortion and have supported BANNING partial birth abortions- because of how more openly and obviously sick they are. Just because I think that its the same thing, doesn't mean that everyone else does. Clearly pro-choicers are split on the subject... thats why it freaks me out that Obama didn't support the partial birth abortion ban-- EEEKS-- even pro-choice democrats disagree with him on that-- but that's another debate.
"Just like Pro-Lifers disagree with abortion up until a certain point (emergency exceptions), Pro-Choicers believe in choice up until a certain point (the viability of a child)."
I think I believe with the message of what you are trying to say, but you I dont think you word it in the clearest way.
Here is how I would amend it:
--Pro-Lifers generally believe that there are exceptions to some rules. (like thou shalt not kill-- except in self defense).
Pro-choicers argument seems totally different to me. And is based on speculation about things that they cannot be proved either way and therefore execution should not be given unless proof is presented of the babies inhuman condition at one point and human condition at another-- and man has not seen such proof-- if such proof can be presented and it is legit-- that changes everything.
ANONYMOUS: "Lastly, there is a lot of talk about the pressures of society. I don't know why everyone is claiming that every young girl who has an abortion feels guilty and sick about it."
well said-- I agree, some people don't-- but that still no excuse to allow them to do it.
ANONYMOUS: "I'm sure many of them do, I most certainly would."
again-- well said, I think many do too- and so would I-- personally, I'd rather die than take such a risk for convenience... and I think you would too... you come across to me as to believe in justice and human rights, and respects the sanctity of human life... That is why I am somewhat confused as to why you defend the defilement of what you believe in-- is it because killing babies is not being represented as clearly as it should be and that injustice in misrepresentation is being had on the side of those who seek to end injustice of a greater magnitude. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that you are spending your mental energy for a lesser cause-- defending the arguments of slavers-- when you could be using it to persuade for a greater good-- just an observation, I'd be curious for an explanation-- but if its personal-- no worries.
LOVED the end of your argument-- lets work together and start somewhere! great idea, any movement for good is wonderful. We will do what we can-- but I will not neglect the issue at hand--
the fact that young girls get judged is sad to me-- but, it doesn't mean that I should abandon defending the innocent ones who have no voices of their own-- I will do both, and fight for both, since both being treated unjustly... unfortunately I cannot vote to "not judge people" but I can vote for leaders who actually have the power to make abortion illegal. I will vote directly on what I can-- and set my example and teach to help with the rest.
This is such a perfectly named blog! "Politics, Religion, and Richard"! That's what it comes down to, doesn't it, Richard? Those three things are what matter most to you.
After reading through most of it (I do apologize, and admit, I skipped through a few parts that seemed repetitive so I could get to the end!) I think I am ready to put in my 2 cents.
Mike and I have pretty similar stand points on the abortion issue. IMHO I am adamantly against the idea of abortion. "The idea" is key here.
Imagine a world where abortion was illegal. Just think about it for a minute. People would probably be more careful to practice safe sex, think twice about it since abortion is no longer a form of birth control.
But what about the one person, who was raped by her father. Or the one woman who has tried most of her life to get pregnant and eventually gives up in her 50's. And then a miracle happens. 3-4 months into her pregnancy the doctors tell her she will die if she carries to full term.
Now personally, I do not know from experience, but being a woman with strong maternal instincts but has yet to have children, I would imagine myself in these situations and would probably choose to keep the baby. I can't make it right in my head to kill a living thing, MY living thing thing that I created in my body. It's depending on me to grow. That is why I don't personally believe in abortion- I just can't imagine myself ever being ok with it.
But most people I understand are not like me. Most people, if they were raped by their father, would not want to carry that baby. Most women who are in their 50's would say they still have plenty of life left to live and may not want to end it by carrying a baby to full term when they are obviously too old to be having children.
Because of these situations, I think twice about an absolute ban on abortion. Not to say that I have a solution to this- anyone could walk into a clinic and claimed incest or rape just to get an abortion.
But I think about these women in controversial situations, and think about what they might do if abortion were illegal. Would they drive to Mexico to find someone to do it for them under the table? Would they go the old fashioned way before abortion was legal and use a coat hanger?
The idea of these make me just as sad as the idea of killing an innocent baby growing in a mother's womb.
So I don't stand firmly as pro-choice or pro-life. Obviously I am pro-life, as some would call it. But does not make me NOT pro-choice?
It sounds to me like you're pro-choice: you can't seem to understand why a woman would want to have an abortion and you yourself wouldn't but you understand situations come up... you're pro-choice.
Hey Garrett, when you said:
"This is such a perfectly named blog! "Politics, Religion, and Richard"! That's what it comes down to, doesn't it, Richard? Those three things are what matter most to you."
Garrett, you are right in teaching me to see that, thank you for helping me to see that. Sometimes I get so centered on these kinds of things and myself that I don't see the people behind what is happening, that is very un-Christlike and inhuman of me to do-- it is the people that matter most, and I should be aware of that. I need to do better, thank you for your help in teaching me how to get the beams out of my own eyes before I go around picking out slivers in others like I have been-- again, thank you.
HEY JENN! I'm so excited that you came on here! -- its awesome to hear from you and Mike, I miss you guys. Us and Ben should all get together sometime soon.
In response to your comment--
that was a great 2 cents you gave, very well worded, clear and very logical and reasonable to me.
Mike and I have pretty similar stand points on the abortion issue. IMHO I am adamantly against the idea of abortion. "The idea" is key here.
you said... "Imagine a world where abortion was illegal. Just think about it for a minute. People would probably be more careful to practice safe sex, think twice about it since abortion is no longer a form of birth control."
that's good stuff, and I agree with you, but I think that the best thing that would happen by a very, very incomprehensibly large degree greater than the rest-- is that-- in a world where abortion was illegal--- there would be much, much, much fewer infants being killed. People would still do it, just like people still murder-- but making it illegal definitely decreases it a LOT.
you said... "But what about the one person, who was raped by her father."
First of all-- that is so sad and violent and sick and atrocious when rape and incest occur.
but-- You know... I had a really interesting experience a number of years ago. My mom was a foster parent, and we had kids come into our home that were from circumstances of rape, and incest. One boy in particular was named Avery, he was the result of incest.. -- Avery was 4 years old when I met him, he was a dwarf.-- this is really personal, but, I have cried on numerous occasions thinking about Avery, he was THE most selfless and kind and sweet, intelligent child I have EVER EVER met in my entire life, being around him was like sitting with the purest representation of the love of God. He once injured his hand, and he didn't want anyone to feel bad for him-- so he hid his face from us, as tears rolled down his face and he tried to hold the grimace of pain from any of us to see it. When I noticed his solitude in suffering I immediately picked him (he was very small) up and held him, he wrapped his arms around me and wept... and so did I. -- Even though the incest that brought him into the world was a very sad and awful thing-- Avery was a very pure and good thing. And I would give my life to save Avery's. I think that a woman who has been raped could be healed from the experience by making a good choice-- rather than returning violence for violence: then she must not only forgive the perpetrator, but also herself.
you said... "Or the one woman who has tried most of her life to get pregnant and eventually gives up in her 50's. And then a miracle happens. 3-4 months into her pregnancy the doctors tell her she will die if she carries to full term."
This is the only instance where I can see it as a possibility to have an abortion. In legal terms it might be compared to self defense-- though in this case the person is innocent. So it might be more just to compare it to a man who is driving down a road. The road is narrow and he is going fast. As he rears a corner he sees two people standing in the road-- there is not enough time to slow down... on he left hand side is a small child picking up stones, and on the right is a woman picking berries. He slams on the breaks-- but he cant slow down on time-- there is not enough room on the road to avoid both, so he must make a choice. One will kill the mother-- the other will kill the child-- He looks at the woman to see if she will indicate which way he should turn the wheel in that split second- HARD DECISION.
Now compare that to another analogy.
A man is driving down the road and he sees that a log is in the path in front of him-- hitting this log will completely total his car-- and although he can gauge that the log probably wont kill him-- he will probably have a lot of pain, maybe break his arm and get bruises all over. To the left of the log a small child is picking flowers. He can choose to either hit the log and cost him a lot of money and pain-- very slight chance of death (VERY unlikely) OR he can avoid all of that unnecessary pain and money and just run the child over-- in order to avoid legal entanglement he could just say that she got in the road. -- no legal punishment.
Like most analogies, these are not perfect illustrations of the circumstances, but I hope that they better demonstrate the point that I am trying to make.
you said..."Now personally, I do not know from experience, but being a woman with strong maternal instincts but has yet to have children, I would imagine myself in these situations and would probably choose to keep the baby. I can't make it right in my head to kill a living thing, MY living thing thing that I created in my body. It's depending on me to grow. That is why I don't personally believe in abortion- I just can't imagine myself ever being ok with it."
I admire you and your good husband. You are good people to me whether you vote pro-choice or pro-life. Thank you for your good examples.
you said... "But most people I understand are not like me."
no they aren't-- that is why it means so much to me to discover that my friends and relatives are such good people.
"Because of these situations, I think twice about an absolute ban on abortion."
I completely agree with you-- you make a very good point and your argument was excellent. I do not think that there should be an absolute ban on abortion. I think that when someone may die, and is having an abortion because of a form of self defense-- this is something that I believe that should be legal-- it makes sense to you in the same way that it makes sense to you. I believe that you are right.
-- making a COMPLETE ban on abortion would be sort of like making a COMPLETE ban on killing-- what if someone had to kill to defend themselves? that is unjust and your argument is perfect.
you said... "But I think about these women in controversial situations, and think about what they might do if abortion were illegal. Would they drive to Mexico to find someone to do it for them under the table? Would they go the old fashioned way before abortion was legal and use a coat hanger?"
Some and even many people break the law in awful and sad ways that damage-- not just other people-- bu themselves as well. Some people may get raped-- and in return go and get a gun and shoot the person that raped them. -- Rape is terrible, murder is terrible, and
abortion is terrible. -- and I may be wrong, but this does not seem to make sense to me that because something is terrible, and that people will still do it even when it is made -- that the thing should be legalized for any reason. But it does make sense to me that there should be some situations where it is permitted-- just as killing is permitted in the case of self defense.
Now-- I dont know yet exactly how I feel about permitting it in the case of rape, or incest..... ..... oh man..... when I think about it, I think about me voting to let someone end Avery's mortal life.... that is sooooooooo hard-- why cant I just die instead? why must violence always lead to violence in peoples minds? I don't have all the answers, but those are my thoughts and feelings on the matter-- but I can see that you, Ben, Mike and I all have that same sanctity for human life and freedom. Its just how to apply it and what to do about it that we are trying to determine. Thank you for your post-- I look forward to reading more from you and Mike.
Richard~ I have read the posts through briefly. the large portion of the information being spat across the table is sizeable at that! I see you asking what is the position for people of a LDS mind set to say voting Pro Abortion? In a talk with you and another, you mention the late James E Faust. Along with the question of... how can he be a Democrat? You then proceeded to point out diffrent reasons for someone to be a voting Democrate.
Steping back and not reading all of the text and information that has been already offered on such a large topic. Allow me to add my 2 cents.
The Church is NOT against Abortion.
WHAT!|?!?!?
As we have already stated the church allows for abortion under specfic guidelines. But it does allow for abortions!
The church of Jesus Christ of Latterday saints is not a "THOU SHALT NOT" Church. It is a "You should do this.... or It might be better to not do this... "
The Word of Wisdom being an example. It says, "...to eat meat sparingly." How many members eat fast food 3 times a day having hamburgers, or ham or chicken? Or just look at the month of NOV, and DEC, Turkey for the next 3 months!
It says "...to use spices sparingly." How many members do you personally know or yourself, adding pepper and salt and other spices to all meals?
it says to not drink "hot drinks" but yet there are still members, TEMPLE recomending carring members, drinking their morning coffee every day before work.
It says that we shouldn't have abortions, EXCEPT under specefic conditions.
YET! Under those specfic condidtions WE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION.
THAT is why LDS members can vote Democrat. THAT is why they can support Obama.
I do not support that way of thinking, but, i understand why they think THAT way.
It is nice to see you engaged in these conversations I will talk to you more on Facebook and catch up with you there! Take care Brother! :)
--Nick Perkins--
Re: Nick's comment, he is right. The church officially encourages people to have abortions under those two circumstances he listed, namely forcible conception (rape) and extreme health risk to the mother.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
So, by definition, the pro-Life stance is the one against the teachings and practices of the church, contrary to your claim before.
Garret-"So, by definition, the pro-Life stance is the one against the teachings and practices of the church, contrary to your claim before."
As is mentioned occasionally above, both sides are rarely to the extreme. From what I can tell, most Pro-lifers make room for the exceptions, like Richard was saying. On the flip side, I don't think many, or any, Pro-choicers are ALWAYS ok with abortion. A statement labeling pro-life as anti-LDS? seems ridiculous to me, and I'm not even a member.
Richard, I haven't been writing for the last couple days, but I've been keeping up on the forum. I decided I needed some time to sort out my thoughts before saying something I don't believe. As I see it, barring your "self defense" scenario, there is no reason, good or bad, for an abortion, other than the incest scenario. I realize your personal experience has shown you that it could work out fine anyway, but I could never make a woman have to go through the anguish of bearing a child that was the product of incest. that would have to be her decision alone. the mental toll it would take on her would be astronomical, i cant even imagine it. That being said, I now consider myself pro-life, which isn't a change, but am also willing to vote pro-life, assuming it wasn't an all out ban on abortion altogether, which I don't think anyone is looking for anyway.
That's the perfect comment. Pro-Life is so broad - if you claim to be "pro-life" that means you must value life over everything in every situation. You must constantly be peaceful and non-violent in EVERY situation. But no one is truly like that because there are these exceptions that we make for convenience. We let abortion happen if it's inconvenient, we value appeasement, and we let the murders of others occur in other circumstances (war, capitol punishment, defense). Being pro-life is like being a unicorn. It's not real. But that's life... we create these terms and then make it so they represent something they don't define. That's why I feel so strongly that you cannot use the "murder" argument to defend your belief in "pro-life". If you don't believe in killing a "baby" (they're a fetus, not a baby) in one circumstance you can't believe in killing it in another and then defend your argument on the grounds that it's murder. Even with self-defense. Murder is murder. If you don't believe in it in every situation then don't use that argument.
Richard, you asked me what my personal beliefs were and suggested that I'm defending something I don't really believe in. It's difficult for me as it is for anyone. I don't like the idea of abortion - I've seen the pictures, they're disgusting and sad. But I'm a student of politics and I have this incredible belief in political systems. They have the ability to truly and successfully support a people. However, in a democracy we have to agree to the social contract as Rousseau would argue - work for the common good. Not everyone in the U.S. is Christian and we cannot rest on Christian ideals. Perhaps that's how our country began and perhaps we hold those ideals high still, but times have changed. I don't believe abortion is murder. As a term, if we must use them, murder is the killing of something conscious and it's proven that these fetuses are not conscious. They are made up of cells and membranes but they aren't conscious. What's the definition of life? When does it begin? That's your debate. Once you can answer that you can decide. I look at the Bible and I see references to breath as the beginning of life. Perhaps that's when it begins. I respect your argument that we don't know the answer to this question so we should settle on the precautionary approach - let's ban it so we aren't accidentally killing souls. And maybe that is, in your mind, the common good - to ban these abortions. But there is so much opposition to it that it's not the common good at this point. People want this privacy and this freedom, it's how many of this country speaks and because we're a democracy we listen. Just as you have to me :). That's why I stress working on other parts of this problem first before we go back to the unanswerable debate of when life begins... it will get us no where. Let's confront the issues of social acceptance of teenage pregnancies. I know it's nothing you can vote on at the moment.. but you can vote on other issues that do truly benefit the common good, the social contract of our society - to work hard to benefit everyone. I know in your mind everyone includes these "babies" that aren't conscious. And you are good to argue the slavery issue. That social norm changed and we realized enslaving humans is wrong. And we eventually (after many more years) gave them equal rights. Let's give women equal rights to decision made to their bodies and the equal right to privacy and let's educate them on how to have protected sex and that using abortion as a means of everyday birth control is not its function nor is it the wish of pro-choicers.
Mike-- you said: "I haven't been writing for the last couple days, but I've been keeping up on the forum. I decided I needed some time to sort out my thoughts before saying something I don't believe."
you know mike... I never fully realized before what a deep and amazing person you are, or what a great wife you have. I wish the world were full of people who were as thoughtful and inherently good as you two.
Whether you had concluded one side or the other regarding what is for society to embrace-- I admire the great care in which you thought of all those involved- you never mentioned yourself but you carefully weighed out the justice and goodness for all who equate the sum of the situation. Your ability to see the issue, describe all of its moving parts and then choose the path that took all of those parts into consideration is astounding... running for president? jk -- seriously though, I miss and love you guys.
--well said mr. anonymous-- we certainly agree with one thing-- that was a perfect comment. I am going to make another post to respond to you-- but it might be a better use of time to go back and read what has been written, because Jenn, Mike, Ben, and I have already analyzed every aspect of what you are bringing up again... except for the unicorn thing-- that was just cool. -- as for now, its late and so I wont be able to write much.
Anonymous-- Im going to go through your argument which has already been covered completely by past posts and restate what the four of us have already stated or mentioned in our reasoning-- honestly-- because I'm worried that you wont do it, and I believe that the situation is important enough to have it restated-- though it will take me some time and it is late.
you said..."it's proven that these fetuses are not conscious."
that is not true, science has not proven, nor is capable of proving such a thing. -- even if it were true (which you cannot know)-- that's no excuse to kill someone. You can call me a fetus or an infant or a negro-slave or white-man-- but that doesn't mean that you have a right to kill me whether I am conscious or unconscious for a short period of time, whether you do it in the name of privacy or property or your interpretation of religion, seeing as you quoted the bible. -- I will defend the right that you have to live, I will defend that right in anyone, no matter what name you give them. I will stand up and represent those who are not capable of being represented-- the slave, who cannot vote or the innocent ones, who for a short time have no voices of their own.
"Let's give women equal rights to decision made to their bodies and the equal right to privacy"
I agree-- lets give women equal rights, and right to privacy for their own bodies.
You say this as if that is somehow a license to end the life of others bodies. That right I cannot give- for it is not mine to give, neither is it yours. Just as you have no right to kill me when I have caused you no injustice. Whether I be Christian or have no religion at all-- the consideration and justice of the lives of others should be maintained.
you said..."there are these exceptions that we make for convenience. We let abortion happen if it's inconvenient, we value appeasement, and we let the murders of others occur in other circumstances (war, capitol punishment, defense). Being pro-life is like being a unicorn. It's not real."
thats a wonderful point, bad things happen and there are exceptions to rules-- love the unicorn reference-- but I dont understand why that means that we can't stand up for what is right-- or why you cannot-- if you know that something is inherently wrong or very well may be inherently wrong, why would you vote for it? Why not instead vote for what is right? I hope that you oppose unjust murder, unjust war and infanticide committed out of convenience.-- I assume you would vote against unjust war-- even if many do not agree with you-- why not vote against something else that you believe to be inherently wrong... at least you said earlier that you believe that it is wrong. But you seem to believe that the right of privacy over-rules the right of a growing human unborn-infants right to live or HIS/HER right to privacy--leave the poor kid alone in there! stop voting to let people cut his head off with metal hooks!, The little tyke is busy growing like the rest of us! stop ignoring his privacy and his RIGHT TO LIFE which is NOT over-ruled because some people think that the bible teaches that life begins when they breath for the first time-- ever see a water birth? look it up on youtube-- they do it all the time. --It is unjust to enforce your interpretation of the bible-- (which I believe to be totally false by the way) on a little unborn baby who can't defend itself. And if you refuse to defend it-- but persist to ensure that it goes un-protected as the slaves did for so many years, I will do my best to teach others and vote for what is just-- regardless of what society/religion may agree with, and regardless of how you or any other religion interprets the bible.
you said..."They are made up of cells and membranes" and "they're a fetus, not a baby"
-- now I assume you call the human a fetus and refer to his tissue and cells to lessen the fact that you are promoting to vote for killing a human -- call it a ding-dong if you want, but its still a human-- saying that a human in a stage of its growth isn't human-- because medically its called a fetus also, is like saying that because a human baby toddler is medically called a toddler and not a baby human- it must not be human. And just because unborn babies have cells and tissue...okay... I'm not even going to go on with that one.-- moving on.
you said... "I don't like the idea of abortion - I've seen the pictures, they're disgusting and sad...
Totally agree with you.
"you said... [governments] have the ability to truly and successfully support a people. However, in a democracy we have to agree to the social contract as Rousseau would argue - work for the common good. Not everyone in the U.S. is Christian and we cannot rest on Christian ideals."
sounds great-- how about we not support ideas because they are christian and instead support ideas because they are just-- (like mike recognized) working for the common good no matter how we may differ religiously. that is why I will vote for what is right and just despite how others interpretations of the bible or yours or anyone else may disagree with me socially-- that does not eliminate the right of those who cannot vote. But I will vote for what I personally believe to be just, whether it be slavery or abortion-- whether everyone disagree with me or not-- that is the beauty of voting, you dont have to agree with me, you just have to do what you think is the most just for everyone involved-- that is what I would do for you, that is what I will fight for-- and I hope that you do the same. -- respectfully, Richard
anonymous- Reading through your posts you have put an emphasis on the fact that killing is killing, regardless of self-defense. That we make exceptions due to socially acceptable circumstances in the world today, or close to that effect. I have to agree completely. So while I realize that comparison to murder isn't the closest comparison in your opinion, bare with me. We all can agree that killing is bad, if not wrong, and that murder is definately wrong. I separate the two because murder is a legal term that doesn't encompass war, ect. We leave room for exceptions, I think, not because we feel i that killing a man in self-defense is a GOOD thing, but the lesser of two evils placed in front of us. Now that being said, the popular term "what would jesus do?" well, he taught to turn the other cheek. It might, for all I know, be the correct decision to make if a man is trying to kill you. Not the choice I would personally make, but possibly right. If I feel I or my family is in danger from someone, I will do whatever is in my power to stop him. The laws of man have given me this right. If the bible states anything on this subject, i am unaware of it. I think the main reason the laws of man have given me this right, is that no other man has the right to tell me to NOT defend myself and my family. I veiw the abortion issue similarly. While we may all believe that abortion is bad is all cases, who am I as a man to tell a women that she MUST put the life of her unborn before herself. It would probably be right, im not sure, but its not my place to decide that. Im not talking about an inconvenient pregnancy, I'm talking about when the birth honestly poses a risk to the mothers health. No man has the right to tell me not to defend myself, no man has the right to tell the mother the same thing. The reason I went through this in length, which im sorry for, is to show that a statement you made-
"That's why I feel so strongly that you cannot use the "murder" argument to defend your belief in "pro-life". If you don't believe in killing a "baby" (they're a fetus, not a baby) in one circumstance you can't believe in killing it in another and then defend your argument on the grounds that it's murder. Even with self-defense. Murder is murder. If you don't believe in it in every situation then don't use that argument."
has, in my point of view, flaws. Your statement is, logically, entirely true. Murder is murder, killing is killing, ect. Unfortunately we are all humans, and therefore must act accordingly. Absolutes are rarely if ever true, words like "always" and "never" show either ignorance or pride, and most importantly, we cannot decide for someone else whether they will sacrifice or save themselves. I just realized that the "pro-life" slogan goes both ways, or should. To child and mother alike. So is killing bad? yes, of course. Is murder wrong? always. Should a mother have to choose to uphold the life of her child at the risk of her own? THAT is not my place to say, and the only exception I can find to being anti-abortion. Not because it is suddenly good instead of bad, or no longer killing. But because I am also for the mothers life.
wow- mike- that is really profound and makes total sense- I wish I could have said it like that, but I'm glad that someone else can... I dont even know what to say other than "wow".
Ill write more later, when I've taken all that in...
Its funny because I felt deep inside of myself these feelings but didn't have the full ability to attain the pure logic and reasoning to back all of it up. Now I can see why-- that makes perfect sense... wow.
i think you said it very well too. that's what i was trying to get people to see when i argued against using the murder card. if you believe murder is wrong, abortion should not be legalized in any way except for the endangerment of the mother because either way that's murder (her or her child). i understand the exceptions and human nature that you noted as well, but thanks for saying that so well.
i'm actually pro-life.. i was trying to argue the other side to the point to see if anyone would budge since it seemed that everyone else was strongly and passionately pro-life. i am, however, a democrat and obama supporter so that's a different story and i come from a different perspective. you and richard have both counteracted my arguments well. i was using arguments from people who debate with me about it because i am mostly surrounded by pro-choicers. except the the murder argument and the unicorn reference.. that was me! anyway, i feel like i have nothing else to say. i don't know how else i would argue pro-choice except for what i have already said.
Anonymous--good job--you did a really great defending the positions of others-- many people can't see any side but their own side well enough to be able to represent it, refute it, or recognize when it hasn't or has been refuted using good reasoning.
You did something that is really hard to do and takes a good open mind to be able to do properly. (i think you did an excellent job defending them-- if it weren't for mikes ability to see things in such a pure way, i don't think I could have seen everything involved). I think that since mike is so open minded he was able to see the pro-choice view well enough to know how to explain it best and display the reasoning involved pointing out the inherent broken logic in the purpose of making laws that are just.
This is fun... now you just need to get some other people on here who have opposing arguments... I think the reason that all of us are on here is because we truly care enough about justice and fairness and goodness that we want to talk about it and learn about it and understand all sides as much as we can. -- if you have any friends who care about these things and have any other positions-- please introduce them to the blog :)
Sixty years ago the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The purpose of the UDHR is international... it goes across borders and applies to everyone. Of course not every country is a part of the UN nor do they see it as an authoritative figure. However, those countries who believe in the UDHR (regardless of their affiliation with the UN.. and morally) are expected to follow it. Article 3 states that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". In my interpretation, I believe that abortion falls under this declaration, in the form of the right to life. "Everyone" can be under interpretation and goes back to the argument of when does life begin but we've already exhausted it and I think we've all come to the agreement that gambling a life isn't what we support. But essentially, the UDHR appears anti-abortion. But what else falls under the right of life, liberty, and security of person? I think a lot falls under that and I also believe that abortion is connected with that. So if you are anti-abortion, you obviously value life. Life needs to be supported, of course, with other essentials... like clean water and air, food, warmth, availability of resources, a means to make money, etc. Too many cases of unwanted pregnancies end in the mother giving birth and the child suffering because it lives in poverty. Of course an actual chance at life is better than no chance at all and of course there are many success stories of people coming out of poverty. However, as a pro-lifer, because of our ideals, I think that we also have an obligation to work our country (and eventually our world) out of poverty. I also believe that because we hold life as a top value then we need to fight to support it in other ways, like the environment. Ethically, we need to look out for the unborn (like pro-lifers believe) and therefore we need to consider the damage to the environment that we as humans do and how it affects our generation and future generations. Richard, you are passionate about life and are wholeheartedly pro-life in the political and literal sense of the word. My passion is the environment and the life within it.. which also happens to be human life as well. I believe as pro-lifers we should feel the need to fight for these other issues. Fight against poverty and hunger. Fight against pollution to our environment which we and our children depend on. And I think that during this presidential election, two tickets that oppose each other on all these issues, are being ran. We don't have much of a middle ground. I apologize for turning this into more of a political comment rather than an abortion comment, but the truth is that we have a tough choice in this election... but can we look deep into the ideals of a pro-life world and pass them on to other things? And then vote accordingly? Which issues do we need to tackle first in order to create a world that favors life over abortion? That is an option for a vote.
well said! -- Ill write more later-- but well said!
I think that the underlying theme of what you are saying is this--
Is abortion alone important enough to vote for the republican candidate and ignore all of the other very important issues which combined or alone may be just as important in the long run-- things which the democratic candidate represents?
(let me know if this is what you were getting at)
I add to this-- who should we vote for and why??
If it is okay-- I would like to draw this discussion in the other blog called-- who are you voting for and why-- I will restate this post here and the other post made.
Go there to continue the debate, if that is what the debate is about-- I am excited to learn more.
This is responding to Nicks post that says that the church is not a "thou shalt not" church, and to Garretts where he said that the church actually "encourages" some people to have abortions, and where it was said that the pro-life position is contrary to the church.
The scriptures tell us: "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it. (D&C 59:6; italics added.)
Except where the wicked crime of incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth, abortion is clearly a "thou shalt not." Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice. (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Nov. 1990, p. 85.)
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person".
I also believe this falls under the right to save the life of a mother in the case that she will surely die if she carries full term.....
Obama said himself that the only reason he didn't vote against partial birth/late term abortion was because it didn't protect the rights of the mother in the situation where she would die if she carried full term. He made it very clear that he was against partial birth/late term abortion in normal circumstances.
I personally have a difficult time imagining myself actually wanting a late term abortion, even if I knew it meant I could die. But not everyone feels that way.... and the law isn't just for me, right?
i feel the same way as you
Post a Comment