Gator Bait Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 how many people have thought of the word "abortion" and what it means. abort, like aborting a mission. "well, this just isn't gong as we planned, lets abort it, remove the baby" Abortion is morally wrong, if you don't think it is, you have serious problems. But, even with that being said, I don't think abortion should be a political debate. I also, however, think if someone breaks into your house, or even tries to steel the rims off your car, you should be able to shoot them dead right there on the spot. (edit: so I can't be a hypocrite and argue that I am "pro life" because I'm not!) Funny thing is....there are so many "religious church goers" who are pro choice, but it contradicts their religious beliefs. I find it ironic that someone who is agnostic (such as myself) could have stronger morals than a "religious" person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yes, Yes and most defenitly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yes. Temporary solution to a much larger problem. Limited. If the government is going to rape our bank accounts, out of work people should have access to aid. But certainly not for generations. No. Healthy kids = healthy adults which saves money in long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't think anyone is "for" abortion, but I am generally pro-choice because I think the decision should be between a woman and her doctor (up to a certain point). I'm for a social safety net of some kind, so I guess I'm for welfare, although I also appreciate the need for some oversight and regulations to make sure it's not abused. A compassionate and decent society should make sure that its less fortunate citizens, or those that have fallen on hard times, are given a way to gain access to the basic necessities of life until they can get back on their feet. And I'm for SCHIP since medical care should never be denied to children who can't afford it for whatever reason. I see where Burgold is going here, and I've had the same thoughts as well. Sometimes it seems that those who are totally against abortion out of concern for "life" BEFORE the babies are born somehow seem to have less concern for those same lives AFTER they are born. Those who would make abortion illegal would have babies be born into difficult situations (abusive family life, poverty, parents unable to care for the child), and a true "pro-life" position, if consistent, would then do everything possible to support that baby's life as it grows up, including welfare and health insurance if needed. Why does concern for life sometimes not extend beyond the delivery room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'm all for doing a late term abortion on the faux Stimulus Package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yup, I also don't totally get why 90% of the capitol punishment crowd seem to be anti-abortion. I can kind of rationalize it in that at least the guy getting the death penalty did something to merit it, but if you worship the sanctity of life above everything, how can you be pro death penalty. Then again, there are tons of inconsistancies in how I construct the world too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yup, I also don't totally get why 90% of the capitol punishment crowd seem to be anti-abortion. I can kind of rationalize it in that at least the guy getting the death penalty did something to merit it, but if you worship the sanctity of life above everything, how can you be pro death penalty. Then again, there are tons of inconsistancies in how I construct the world too. Only a liberal can equate supporting the birth of an innocent life to purging society of human debris to prevent future actions of a serial killer, pedophile who snuffs out his victims, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yup, I also don't totally get why 90% of the capitol punishment crowd seem to be anti-abortion. I can kind of rationalize it in that at least the guy getting the death penalty did something to merit it, but if you worship the sanctity of life above everything, how can you be pro death penalty. Kind of the opposite of supporting the killing of innocent children and wanting murderers to live. Also a popular opinion, and a different thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Depends, depends, depends. How's that for an ambiguous answer, lol. I do think these 3 programs/actions are linked together and have a revolving relationship with one another at a basic level, but I also think they can mostly be addressed and ammended separately. So there's my non-answer, answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Absolutely, Timmysmith. I think that argument could be made just as validly. Although, I suspect most pro choice folk would argue that the life being terminated isn't a child yet. Still, to a degree that has to be rationalization. It's still lifetaking by whatever name you call that rose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Bait Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 but if you worship the sanctity of life above everything, how can you be pro death penalty. that's why I'd refer to myself as anti abortion (although i wont let this issue sway my opinion in political mater) and not "pro life" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_K Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 No Yes Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I look at each as individual concerns.Welfare: Believe it or not, I am not totally against welfare. What I rail against is the welfare system and the fraud, misuse, and waste that comes with it. I believe that welfare should be reserved for the truly helpless and that if someone needs a very temporary boost to get though a difficult patch in their lives then they should receive that benefit. I think that strict time horizons should be mandated for any beyond the handicapped, elderly or children. SCHIP: I think that it is 100% uneeded and that kids whos parents could and should have gotten their own insurance should be rersponsible for paying the bills. medicaid covers the children of the poor already, why would we need an expanded prohram of waste on top of it? Hawaii's schip program caused massive problems yet oor "leaders: chose to ignore that fact and push the beast through anyway. It was a gpood way to gain votes from the masses in the spiroit of faux compassion. I QFT for those two, but add a lil dif take on Abortion. Abortion: I personally would not have one. BUT, I do not believe it is the governments right, federal or state, to tell a woman she can't have one. I believe that we need to do more in the area of education and moral responsibility to help curb the obnoxious abuse of abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Only a liberal can equate supporting the birth of an innocent life to purging society of human debris to prevent future actions of a serial killer, pedophile who snuffs out his victims, etc. Kind of the opposite of supporting the killing of innocent children and wanting murderers to live. Also a popular opinion, and a different thread. Not to hijack the thread, but this argument is both a gross oversimplification of a more complicated position, and is still inconsistent, as Burgold stated, with the position that life is sacred. If one believes that God's creation of life on Earth gives it sanctity, then one can hardly exclude even the murderers and rapists. Though they may have fallen from God's good graces, they are still His children and their life is still sacred, and they still have a chance to repent and be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven. It is He who will judge them. To Burgold's original question, I am not necessarily for or against abortion, as I feel it is a very complicated issue that shouldn't be reduced to something that could fit on a bumper sticker. I am, though, opposed to frivolous abortions, or "abortions of convenience." I agree with others that the federal government has absolutely no business in this issue, and should be left to the states. While I think abortion could be a humane and sometimes necessary action, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable making that decision for someone else. With welfare, it seems it is the abuse, fraud, and mismanagement of it that bothers most people, not the notion of lending a helping hand to those in need. I've met a couple people in my travels that used welfare only when they had no other options, but they used it to help feed and clothe and house their children, went to school, got a job, and haven't looked back. To them, welfare helped them because they wanted something better. To others, of course, it becomes a way of life. Like Wall Street, for example. With SCHIP, of course no one wants to deny health care to children, but if there are better mechanisms for doing that, perhaps they should be pursued. Is there correlation between these three concerns? I think one could make a clear argument to demonstrate that. There are connections in life everywhere. What limits our political and social understanding is the reduction of everything to a simple "for" or "against" position, without trying to gauge just how deep and interconnected are all the human issues that simultaneously tear us apart and bind us together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 totally different. abortion - I am starting to become more and more pro life. i still believe it is a woman's body and there are certain cases where it is the right thing to do but I see so many women out there that have multiple ones and that makes me sick. but in cases of severe retardation or rape victims I support it. welfare - if it wasnt for welfare I might have died. I was totally depended on the food we got and if we didnt get that help my brother and I might have starved. And thats just real. I saw a silly article once where a guy had written that people who get welfare should be drug tested and I agree. too many people use it for the wrong reasons but I cant say I dont support it because I was on welfare for a good portion of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 I think I'm sort of with most in the way you're choosing to answer this question. I have a sliding scale for most of these issues. I don't think abortion should be an easy choice, but I don't know that I believe in government making it illegal. Soul/when does the organism become human kind of questions get muddied up with the idea of personal freedom. I don't think anyone is for abuse. I believe in the need for a welfare system although in most instances I think it should be on a clock or coupled with some kind of training program. The purpose of welfare should be to get you off welfare. Schip... kids are innocents, get em what they need. I do see all these issues as very interconnected though. Nice post, Headexplode. Good to see you back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Another mostly innocent question... For those of you who who are against abortion laws because they feel that this isn't a federal issue, why should it be a state issue? Why do you think that states should have the right to mandate laws one way or another on this issue, but not Washington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 No, yes, yes. Yes (with conditions making it rare), No, NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Another mostly innocent question...For those of you who who are against abortion laws because they feel that this isn't a federal issue, why should it be a state issue? Why do you think that states should have the right to mandate laws one way or another on this issue, but not Washington? Article 1 section 8 of the constitution would be the first rationale, the sencond is the simple question back..."why isnt murder a Federal crime?" The states are best equiped to understand their local demographic and can legislate according to culture and ideals rather than a carte blanche federal policy. (just my personal opinion, I feel this way about many issues though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't wholly disagree, but should this be a matter regulated by either the feds or the states? We restrict what can be put in cigarettes, but don't ban smoking. We place restrictions on the hygiene of tatoo parlors, but don't ban the practice. We make sure people performing lyposuction and other non emergency services are licenced, but we don't make them illegal. Why is this an issue that the state should decide over the individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 for the ones who say how can a religous person who is against abortion, be for the death penalty... Matthew 5:29- Jesus said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of our body than for your whole body to be thrown to hell. (speaking about adultry and even so much as lusting after somone other than your spouse). There are some other biblical quotes in regard to following the law of the land and such, as well as physical punishment for crimes (or crimes against God) so maybe someone who is better versed on the bible could add that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.