Thiebear Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I've always said adoption should be 1st as it helps two people: the baby and the family that adopts.. But if i'm going to give an inch it would be for that scenario... Good job at evading the question and instead asking a question back though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 It isn't my fault your questions have nothing to do with the topic. ok you want the man to have 50% control over the woman's body because he had sex with her? The woman's body is her body, the man doesn't have to worry about child birth, if we did then you would have a point, but we don't, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty ok you want the man to have 50% control over the woman's body because he had sex with her? The woman's body is her body, the man doesn't have to worry about child birth, if we did then you would have a point, but we don't, The disconnect come when the mother wants to have the child and the father does not. She then has recourse with a paternity suit to ensure the father lives up to his responsibility in making a life. (Which I agree with. I want the same level of accountability on the mother's side as well.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Ahh so you consider the father just like a vial of fluid to be used at the mother will? I expect the father to have a voice in it if he WANTS the child... 1st: he wants the child, you don't find that too often, reward it. 2nd: he participated in the act and she allowed him to, she then gave him partial credit for the process and he should get partial call upon a positive result. Im not talking about some young guy walking by that winks at her... Im talking about the father of the child: Childbirth is easy. 18 years of childhood followed up by 30 years of adulthood is hard... If i could get an epideral for the next 14 years it would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty It isn't my fault your questions have nothing to do with the topic. ok you want the man to have 50% control over the woman's body because he had sex with her? The woman's body is her body, the man doesn't have to worry about child birth, if we did then you would have a point, but we don't, He's not asking for 50% of the woman's body. He wants a say in the decisions surrounding the baby. Question: Is the baby the woman's body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty he (thiebear) implied if a mother is raped she could have a choice to abort. I said that doesn't make sense. I'm against abortion even in rape cases. Does that make me insensitive to the woman? Not at all. But two wrongs don't make a right. To add murder to a rape is a double tragedy, IMO. Remember, it's not the baby's fault, so why punish the baby with death? There are plenty of parents out there who would love to adopt that child. The evildoer is the rapist. Catch him and deal with him according to the law. But let the innocent remain innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 I just want to say how suprised I am by the showing of support for the value of life on this board. This is my first attempt to get at the truth of the fetus = life debate. I think a mother who wants a baby would put an extremely high value on the life that exists within her. A mother who does not want the baby puts a very low value on that same life. The suprising result IMO is that the definition of that value changes from not only person to person but from situation to situation. The pro-choice advocates must understand that for their position to be legitimate, that value must not change. A pro-choice advocate must either ignor this discrepancy or they must truly believe that life does not begin until childbirth. That is most troubling to me. For over thirty years this country has allowed abortions and allowed women the moral certainity that comes with her ability to make that decision. In the wake of this empowerment of the woman right to choose life, over 40,000,000 births have been aborted. That is a sad situation. I want to thank everyone who posted their poll on this subject. I did not start this thread to bash the pro-choice advocates on this site. But the results, as well as the debate, helped me through a very difficult issue that I had not yet decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan51 I'm against abortion even in rape cases. Does that make me insensitive to the woman? Not at all. But two wrongs don't make a right. To add murder to a rape is a double tragedy, IMO. Remember, it's not the baby's fault, so why punish the baby with death? There are plenty of parents out there who would love to adopt that child. The evildoer is the rapist. Catch him and deal with him according to the law. But let the innocent remain innocent. Here is your moral conundrum do you protect the alleged life, or do you allow the woman who was raped to be free of her rapist without the 9 months of pain she must go through? Do you sacrifice liberty of one person for the life of another (assuming it is life)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Here is your moral conundrum do you protect the alleged life, or do you allow the woman who was raped to be free of her rapist without the 9 months of pain she must go through? Do you sacrifice liberty of one person for the life of another (assuming it is life)? Considering that less than 1% of all aborted babies were the result of rape or incest, the point is moot. It's typical liberal rationale, and it drives me nuts! We make a law based on .05% impact upon the population instead of making law based on the impact of the other 99.5%. Does this make any sense? All this because we don't want .05% of pregnant mothers to "feel bad" during their 9 months of pregnancy before extracting themselves 100% from the issue by giving up the baby for adoption? Do we ever doubt the reality of decisions that will result in harm for the small minority while protecting the best interests of the majority of the population? If we can save 100,000 people by allowing one person to die horribly, would the decision be in doubt? Come on! The argument is absolutely insane when looked at as a whole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Here is your moral conundrum do you protect the alleged life, or do you allow the woman who was raped to be free of her rapist without the 9 months of pain she must go through? Do you sacrifice liberty of one person for the life of another (assuming it is life)? 9 months of pain? Emotional pain? Physical pain? What? All pregnancy includes pain (both emotional and physical), sickness, etc. It doesn't matter if a person is raped or not. It's just the nature of pregnancy. That is not a reason to kill a child, so I don't see it as a conundrum at all. But I do see a conundrum on the other side. Which is worse for the woman, in your opinion: the emotional scars of being raped or the emotional scars of killing a baby? (And those scars DO exist contrary to what Planned Parenthood and other pro-death groups try to cover up to justify their existence.) I also submit that having the abortion isn't really going to ease the pain of the rape. What factual basis is there for that? Having the abortion will only ADD to the emotional scars. Now the woman has been raped and she's committed murder. How will she ever recover? The bottom line is that there is no easy way out of this situation. It's a horrible circumstance to be in (as few times as it really happens). But the innocent baby is never, ever to blame. Adoption is the best way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Considering that less than 1% of all aborted babies were the result of rape or incest, the point is moot. It's typical liberal rationale, and it drives me nuts! We make a law based on .05% impact upon the population instead of making law based on the impact of the other 99.5%. Does this make any sense? All this because we don't want .05% of pregnant mothers to "feel bad" during their 9 months of pregnancy before extracting themselves 100% from the issue by giving up the baby for adoption? Do we ever doubt the reality of decisions that will result in harm for the small minority while protecting the best interests of the majority of the population? If we can save 100,000 people by allowing one person to die horribly, would the decision be in doubt? Come on! The argument is absolutely insane when looked at as a whole! Well we ARE talking about that less than 1% of the people so YOUR point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Well we ARE talking about that less than 1% of the people so YOUR point is moot. But his point is a good one, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Converted Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Irreconcilable is really a state of mind and matter of opinion. I personally believe a fetus becomes a living human at the point it can survive outside it's mother's womb. Of course this can become a intresting slope once science and technology advance far enough to conceive and grow a fetus into a baby, but for now, for legal speak I generally deem that to be close to the end of the second trimester. I support any laws that may restrict abortions after the first trimester outside of medical reasoning, as I believe a woman should be able to make the choice within the first three months of conception for any other reasoning.So for me, I actually wouldn't deem the crime murder or man-slaughter at least until you could prove to me the child could have been medically extracted from the woman and survive on it's own. Essentially, if a murderer sliced a woman's throat, but left the belly and the baby essentially unharmed and intact, could the baby survive with medical help. If the answer is no, then I would concede, that no it wasn't two murders, but one. I would also counter that anything otherwise would be allowing a sexual active, furtile woman to maintain more value for her life then say a male, an infurtile woman, or a sexually inactive woman. To say a the death of a fetus should incur a murder charge is really based solely on emotional value. Because the woman is emotionally devastated over the loss of the fetus, we now should value it higher and punish it more harsher then say the murder of a man who is the sole provider for his wife and three kids? The latter actually has a far greater consequence on society as a whole.. but even then he is treated no differently then a homeless man on the street. Can you prove to me the fetus would have survived to even have been born had the murder or beating never happened? But yet even when you can't, you have to force me to believe that the furtile woman's life and body are worth more then my husband's in term's of punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Converted Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Quote: "I personally believe a fetus becomes a living human at the point it can survive outside it's mother's womb." You have made several references to the woman’s right to choose…you seem very concerned that the right of the woman to choose will be violated should abortion be made illegal, and often I hear pro-abortion supporters give that same cry. As far as I am concerned, that choice is made when the individuals engage in sexual relations. Do you agree that we, as a democratic society, are to ensure that individuals’ rights to life, liberty and property are upheld and not taken away without due process (14th amendment)? If so, then I ask, “Who is going to protect rights of the unborn child?” You know, with advancements in technology, we now know that a heartbeat is detected at twenty-four days. So, by the time a woman knows that she is pregnant, there is a beating heart...imagine in years to come what else we will find out about conception and pregnancy. Hmmm. Furthermore, I don’t agree with you when you say, "I personally believe a fetus becomes a living human at the point it can survive outside it's mother's womb”. To that, I say, there is no infant that survive outside it’s mothers womb without the proper care. Just leave an infant alone for three weeks…can it survive outside the womb? No! No different than a child born premature. Again, with technology, more and more, we are able to take babies, born very prematurely, and support them through what should have been a normal pregnancy of nine months…a belief supported even by Democrat, Joe Liebermann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Converted - welcome to the tailgate! Just a piece of advice though - you may want to review the forum rules; particulary this one: 11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote huge blocks of text or pictures. If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not necessarily the entire post. It wastes space on the database and unnecessarily extends and clutters threads Happy posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Converted Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 ok you want the man to have 50% control over the woman's body because he had sex with her? The woman's body is her body... Yeah, but then you'd be the first person screamin' "There go my baby daddy...I wants my paycheck...can I getta dolla?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Yeah, but then you'd be the first person screamin' "There go my baby daddy...I wants my paycheck...can I getta dolla?" pull up a chair folks, this one's gonna get interesting. :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 pull up a chair folks, this one's gonna get interesting.:munchout: So i'm not the only one that saw that, huh? Offered the guy some advice and he comes back with a thinly disguised racist statement. Makes sense. I believe i'll pull up a chair with you Zoony. :2drunks: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Converted, state your purpose--please make it clear that you are here for reasons other than muckraking and rehashing a tired debate. If you want to bump threads, resurrect those that are relevant. And do so only if you offer something novel in your new perspective. To be clear, racism is not novel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 So i'm not the only one that saw that, huh? Offered the guy some advice and he comes back with a thinly disguised racist statement. Makes sense.I believe i'll pull up a chair with you Zoony. :2drunks: 3 posts... post 1: Broke ES rule and didn't even say anything post 2: Responded to statement made 3 months ago post 3: Racial slur Step back, this guys on FIRE! :doh: ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 3 posts...post 1: Broke ES rule and didn't even say anything post 2: Responded to statement made 3 months ago post 3: Racial slur Step back, this guys on FIRE! :doh: ...... Do i still get credit for trying to help out a noobie, if even its a short lived noobie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Do i still get credit for trying to help out a noobie, if even its a short lived noobie? actually, he was doing o.k. until you 'helped' him :laugh: :jk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 actually, he was doing o.k. until you 'helped' him :laugh::jk: Rincewind - setting noobies on the wrong path since 2004!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Life starts at conception. Science itself has proved this fact. The REAL issue is, do people feel that the fetus is a "Human" life, and should the fetus be treated AS a Human. I personally believe that the fetus IS a Human life, and should be valued as such. Arn't the "little guys" who do all the swimming alive? Could we see a day where any "release" of those fellows in any act, other than for procreation, is criminal? Criminal for killing "potential" life? Just a odd thought at 3:30 am. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Arn't the "little guys" who do all the swimming alive? Could we see a day where any "release" of those fellows in any act, other than for procreation, is criminal? Criminal for killing "potential" life? Just a odd thought at 3:30 am. :logo: it is a crime, and God will kill a kitten any time you kill a batch. Its the sole reason I masterbate as a rule, regardless of if I got any or not. And yes I am that evil that I give her a picture of a kitten and let her know that it died for her. I really cant understand how abortion is so important to someone politically that if a pregant woman was beat down by a sicko that he shouldnt be charged with murder if the baby is lost. You can try to explain yourself, but really I wont ever get it. I have no problem with abortion, Im a if theres a God let him sort them out type of person, but if some one willfully attempts to abort a child in growth and isnt doing it legally then he needs to visit old sparky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.