# tell me if im wrong.....



## martin_shooter (Sep 27, 2008)

one stance that democrats have is pro-choice. they believe a woman should have the choice to have a baby or to abort it because it is her body. i fully understand this (even though i dont agree with it).

another stance they have is anti-death penalty.

i am confused by these two stances because if someone is found guilty of a crime heiness enough to deserve death, what makes their life more valuble than a fetus in a woman who has caused no turmoil in society. this unborn baby hasnt raped, killed, or pillaged anyone. the unborn baby hasned molested any children or blown up a train, but nevertheless, the unborn babies life is of less value than the the perpetrator of a horrendous crime on society. this just dosent seem right....


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

And you have just arrived at just one of the many reasons that proves the liberal brain is backwards.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Sounds like a timing issue, doesn't it?

Actually, I think it shows alot about how the liberal mind works. They are more comfortable taking issue with a "life" that can't fight back ! :wink:

The whole "part of her body" issue is pure :bs:

I don't give one hoot about what a woman does to HER body. I will fight relentlessly to prevent the gov from trying to protect her from herself. This is America, so if you she wants to step in front of a bus...who are we to say she can't?

But we have no way of knowing if the baby growing inside her also wants to be hit by that bus, so until it can make that decision for itself, someone needs to look out for it's best interests...don't you think?

And along those lines, why is it that a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman is charged with 2 counts of vehicular homicide, even though the woman was on her way to the abortion clinic?

Like I said , it's all about timing..... :roll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the Dems are actually pro abortion not choice, they actively discourage the choice of "life".

Ronald Reagan once remarked that without exception everyone thats pro abortion has already been born


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I'm against the death penalty as a policy, but there are plenty of sick SOBs I could flip the switch on myself, and catch a good night's sleep. If the court system was perfect, I'd be just fine with the death penalty. Sure, I feel better when I know that that guy is no longer sharing the same planet as me, but the feel-good aspect isn't enough to out-weigh the fact that innocent people may get killed. All the death penalty accomplishes is giving people a little bit of a warm-fuzzy that that person no longer shares the same planet, and that's not a good enough reason in my view to potentially kill an innocent person.

As far as abortion: I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I would be dead-set against it in my own life. However, there's a point at which a fetus is a clump of cells that may become a person. At that point, I don't feel like I can tell you what to do... Now, as soon as the best medical knowledge available says the fetus feels pain: tough cookies, sweetheart, you missed your window. The line is pretty blurry. Even the pill, which very few people really have any issues with, causes a fertilized embryo to not be able to implant in the uterus. I draw a hard line at when the fetus feels pain, because there is a felt effect on more than the mother.

I don't think there's any cognitive disconnect in these two positions at all. I know we'll get into the "innocent person" language... I don't use "person" or "not person" as my criteria. I leave that up to others. There's very little doubt that an innocent prisoner on death row is a "person"... whether or not a week-old embryo or a just-fertilized embryo that hasn't yet implanted is a "person" is up to interpretation, and I won't make that decision for you.

That's how I see it anyhow...


----------



## LuckCounts (Aug 8, 2008)

When you believe that a fetus is a person at the moment of conception you cannot justify abortion. That's where I stand. I know there are many that will look at a fetus in a clinical manner, that's not me. All of the information that an embryo needs to develop is there at conception. It comes down to a point to a lot of people that there is a magical moment that the fetus becomes a viable life. Who can make that decision and be right 100% of the time unless it is a life at the moment of conception? As far as the death penalty, I'm really torn on it. I still have compassion for the bottom feeders of our society. Human life in all stages is sacred, from conception to death. Abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are all different issues but they all go against safeguarding the sanctity of life. I know if I caught someone harming my family I would act with all of the vigor and strength I had. I think there are a lot of us that could do that. So, if I am going to enact my own personal death penalty, if that's what it takes to protect my family, how could I say that when a person is convicted of crimes that are punishable by death, I would oppose it? Very tough decision, but maybe because I am not strong enough. It's difficult to follow the teachings set forth by your Church, when there is so much emotion attached to the decisions. I know the Church speaks out against it. Very tough issue.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

omegax said:


> I'm against the death penalty as a policy, but there are plenty of sick SOBs I could flip the switch on myself, and catch a good night's sleep. If the court system was perfect, I'd be just fine with the death penalty. Sure, I feel better when I know that that guy is no longer sharing the same planet as me, but the feel-good aspect isn't enough to out-weigh the fact that innocent people may get killed. All the death penalty accomplishes is giving people a little bit of a warm-fuzzy that that person no longer shares the same planet, and that's not a good enough reason in my view to potentially kill an innocent person.
> 
> As far as abortion: I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I would be dead-set against it in my own life. However, there's a point at which a fetus is a clump of cells that may become a person. At that point, I don't feel like I can tell you what to do... Now, as soon as the best medical knowledge available says the fetus feels pain: tough cookies, sweetheart, you missed your window. The line is pretty blurry. Even the pill, which very few people really have any issues with, causes a fertilized embryo to not be able to implant in the uterus. I draw a hard line at when the fetus feels pain, because there is a felt effect on more than the mother.
> 
> ...


So as long as it doesn't feel pain it's ok ?
How about getting shot in the head with a 12 gauge with 000 buckshot ....No pain there either


----------



## maanjus11 (Nov 17, 2006)

The only time I feel abortion is acceptable is in cases of rape. Why should a woman have to endure giving birth when she had no choice in the conception? It could tramatize the victim to a greater extent, so why should they HAVE to bear that? I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, but that's how I feel.

On they other hand, I realize that it could be very difficult to prove rape in some circumstances.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> So as long as it doesn't feel pain it's ok ?
> How about getting shot in the head with a 12 gauge with 000 buckshot ....No pain there either


I never said it's OK. I said I'm not going to tell you what to do. I draw the line at feeling pain because the person/not-person argument, on which the abortion debate hinges, is so open to interpretation. Blasting somebody in the gourd with a shotgun may be "painless", but there's no doubt it's a "person" that got killed.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Why is it this issue sparks so much passion? I told myself to stay out of it...but I gotta make a couple points:

If it's NOT a person, they couldn't charge you for accidentally killing it in the vehicular homicide example given above. So the gov has acknowledged such beyond a shadow of a doubt. Think of any term you want for the developing fetus, but none of them have anything to do with inanimate objects or disposable body parts. It completely defies explanantion to me how any intelligent person can attempt to argue that it is "disposable" for awhile, but later..."magically" becomes a developing little person. Debate whether it's right or wrong, but there is NO debate on whether it is a baby or not.

As far as rape? If you are really worried about the woman's emotional state, and whether bearing the child is worth adding to her already unimaginable hell-like experience, consider this. I work with a guy who's wife counsels women who have had abortions. A 10 minute conversation with him WILL change your mind about a woman's emotional state, concerning abortion. Some women NEVER get over the guilt of killing a child. And believe me when I say they DO view it as killing a child. Just one other way the women's rights groups show their true colors by not warning women of what other women have already taught us.

I understand why someone would want to believe that it was OK to terminate a pregnancy, but how many times do you have to repeat..."it's ok because it really wasn't old enough yet to be a REAL baby" before you start to believe it ????


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Csquared said:


> Why is it this issue sparks so much passion? I told myself to stay out of it...but I gotta make a couple points:


As have I....and as Do I...



Csquared said:


> If it's NOT a person, they couldn't charge you for accidentally killing it in the vehicular homicide example given above. So the gov has acknowledged such beyond a shadow of a doubt.


You state this as fact. However it is not. The government does make a distinction that only late term pregnancies in the last trimester qualify as a second included charge.

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. T*he Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable."* The court defined viable to mean capable of prolonged life outside the mother's womb. It said this included fetuses that doctors expected to be sustained by respirators. The court accepted the conventional medical wisdom that a fetus becomes viable at the start of the last third of a pregnancy, the third trimester, sometime between the 24th and 28th week (a pregnancy usually lasts 38 weeks). Because the point of viability varies, the court ruled, it could only be determined case by case and by the woman's own doctor. Even if the fetus is viable, the court said, states could not outlaw an abortion if the woman's life or health was at stake.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion. And this seems to be the case--up to a point. Doctors now believe a fetus can become viable d_uring the 23rd week--a week earlier than was thought 24 years ago. _Most hospitals will only perform abortions through the 22nd week of pregnancy.

But no baby has *ever* been successfully delivered before the middle of the 22nd week. Babies delivered during the 22nd and 23rd weeks weigh just over a pound. Their lungs have barely formed and their airways are not developed enough to inhale. Circulation depends on the use of ventilators and injections of hormones. A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. _And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator)_. Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed.

Probability of survival increases for babies born later in pregnancy: 25 percent in the 23rd week, 42 percent in the 24th week, 57 percent in 25th week. By the 30th week, when a newborn doesn't require a ventilator to breathe, it has a 90 percent chance of survival. And only after the 30th week do the risks of long-term brain damage begin to substantially subside. Because premature babies depend on technology, survival rates vary based on access to that technology. For instance, in rural communities, which commonly lack expensive infant intensive-care units, survival rates in these early weeks are much lower.
Doctors assess a fetus's viability by attempting to guess whether its lungs have formed. Sonograms allow doctors to estimate the fetus's weight, which correlates with the lungs' development, and to look for signs--such as the development of functioning eyelids and creases in the skin--that coincide with the onset of a functioning respiratory system. None of the methods for predicting viability are very precise.

Despite important Supreme Court decisions since 1973 modifying the doctrine of Roe, the court's thinking about fetal viability has remained fairly constant. The only significant revision came in the Casey decision (1992), which made viability even more important. The court said that state laws could require a woman and her doctor to perform tests to prove that a fetus is not viable before she obtains an abortion.

As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun discussed in his his dissenting opinion in _Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)_:



> The viability line reflects the biological facts and truths of fetal development; it marks the threshold moment prior to which a fetus cannot survive separate from the woman and cannot reasonably and objectively be regarded as a subject of rights or interests distinct from, or paramount to, those of the pregnant woman. At the same time, the viability standard takes account of the undeniable fact that as the fetus evolves into its postnatal form, and as it loses its dependence on the uterine environment, the State's interest in the fetus' potential human life, and in fostering a regard for human life in general, becomes compelling.


Blackmun tells us that viability is the time at which the state has interest in protecting potential human life because the fetus has no interests or rights prior to being able to survive outside the womb. That is the de facto measure used to determine "life".



Csquared said:


> Debate whether it's right or wrong, but there is NO debate on whether it is a baby or not.


There most certainly is.



Csquared said:


> As far as rape?
> 
> If you are really worried about the woman's emotional state, and whether bearing the child is worth adding to her already unimaginable hell-like experience, consider this. I work with a guy who's wife counsels women who have had abortions. A 10 minute conversation with him WILL change your mind about a woman's emotional state, concerning abortion. Some women NEVER get over the guilt of killing a child.


Consider this.. I don't need a 10 minute conversation heresay from a guy's wife's second cousin's sister's babysitter. You are completely and wholly 100% wrong. This one really gets my temperature boiling. It is complete generalizing on your part on this. A 10 minute face to face coversation with me WILL change your limited perspective on this. Yes some women experience regret if they have folks like you and abortion opponents harassing and stigmatizing their choice. HOWEVER, there are just as many women who had to make a choice to abort, whose lives it completely saved for the better. They have no regrets. I can speak first hand as to conversations and experiences I have had regarding close friends who've gone thru the roller coaster of emotions.



Csquared said:


> And believe me when I say they DO view it as killing a child. Just one other way the women's rights groups show their true colors by not warning women of what other women have already taught us.


:eyeroll: :roll:

Believe ME when I say they *DON'T!* This is so incredibly callous of you to make such a blanket statement. I don't know why you consider yourself worthy of speaking on behalf of women whose morals you don't share. It is audacious of you to believe you understand anything about them. Please stop while you are ahead.

To be clear, It is _not_ a child unless it can survive on it's own outside of the womb without artificial medical assistance. That is how the medical designation of considering a fetus in the 3rd trimester a viable entity, that posessed advanced feature beyond a cluster of cells.



Csquared said:


> I understand why someone would want to believe that it was OK to terminate a pregnancy, but how many times do you have to repeat..."it's ok because it really wasn't old enough yet to be a REAL baby" before you start to believe it ????


I understand why someone would want to believe they better understand women in those positions, and make incredibly naieve observations based on a skewed set of beliefs shaped in part by religious dogma. They believe they know better than these naieve women who only think about themselves. They believe that they have the right to make life decisions on families that don't concern them. In short they believe not in individual choice but in guv'mint' knowin' better how to dictate religous morality against their own beliefs.

Sorry to intrude on this debate, I won't contribute in the politics forum as much as I used to, as many here don't want to hear an opinion contrary to their own.

But, I too have a vested deeply personal intimate perspective on this. Unless you've walked in the shoes of someone facing this choice yourself, all your opinion is second hand. I apologize if I offend or ruffle feathers. I strongly believe that the other side has to have a voice in this topic also. i don't believe most everyone here has perspective on this issue, save for what their personal (often religiously skewed) beliefs are.

This is one of the 2 or 3 topics that should never be brought out in polite company. Let's not turn this discussion into a bunch of opinion and heresay.

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Do you feel better, Ryan?

I'm sure no one here expects us to agree, and I'm glad you didn't disappoint.

...but you haven't changed my mind :wink:

Looks to me like you've waited a long time to prove me wrong, so like I said before....I hope you feel better :roll:


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Jeez, Ryan, for a guy who's been keeping a low profile in the politics forum, you definitely jumped back in with both feet by picking this particular topic. 

I don't really like the topic either. There's just no middle ground, and that leads to it getting contentious in a heck of a hurry.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I really don't need the courts or the gov't to tell me whats right or wrong.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

As long as I believe that God determines what is a human life and Ryan believes it's decided by the SCOTUS, there won't be any middle ground


----------



## migrator mafia (Sep 7, 2008)

I dont know all the answers about this topic, but I know the hurt and disgust I feel when i see pictures like these!!

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html (Warning Graphic)

You dont have to be a person of a religious back ground to be bothered by that. These opinions arent just...


> "naieve observations based on a skewed set of beliefs shaped in part by religious dogma


When did we get the right to determine when a "fetus" becomes human... those 7 week old hands from the website look very human to me!

Ryan wrote:


> To be clear, It is not a child unless it can survive on it's own outside of the womb without artificial medical assistance. That is how the medical designation of considering a fetus in the 3rd trimester a viable entity, that posessed advanced feature beyond a cluster of cells.


Then whats the difference if someone is car accident and becomes unable to survive on their own without medical assistance or a physically and mentally handicap child who can not survive without medical assistance... should we end there lives to? Whether it is 7 week old "fetus" or a 7 year old incapable of survival on its own, we should not be the ones to determine life and death. This is just an opinion but my conscience cant justify this issue :eyeroll:


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Csquared said:


> As long as I believe that God determines what is a human life and Ryan believes it's decided by the SCOTUS, there won't be any middle ground


It's not an issue so much of SCOTUS determining what is or is not a human life, it's them acknowledging that there is no one correct definition. You define it based on your interpretation of God's will, good for you. However, that certainty can't be used in a legal context. Even God's will can be interpreted differently, I mean what about Exodus 21:22-24? Causing a miscarriage is not worthy of an eye for an eye penalty (in other words it's not murder). There are also a TON of passages that suggest that breathing defines "life". It's all open to interpretation. Even many pro-life people disagree about things like birth control pills. They cause a fertilized egg to not be able to implant in the uterus, but are they "murder"? The answer to this question is important. Saying "no" means that there is a gray area between fertilized egg and human. That gray area is important. What the Supreme Court has done is picked a time when nobody disagrees about a fetus being human to use as the legal definition. They made about the most amoral (not to be confused with immoral) decision possible. If your personal definition is that a fetus is human before that, you are going to be incredibly upset, because it's nothing less than "murder".

I find abortion disgusting. However, _I_ am not the arbiter of morality, nor do I have any interest in acting as such.

We don't really need everybody sounding off on abortion being bad because "life" begins some time before birth. I think most of us agree there. We've gotten a ways from the original intent of the thread, which was to highlight a perceived dichotomy between pro-choice and anti-death penalty. We otta just lock this bad boy for our own good, while it's still relatively civil. It's going to go nowhere fast.


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

ryan has once again showed why such thinking and modification of moral
values has ruined what common sense our society once had. i wish ryan and others would remove the argument of religion from the issue of abortion. it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with moral and ethical values that are influence by yes religion, but also society, history, etc. we take away children everyday from mothers and fathers who use them as punching bags or ashtrays. we take away people's freedoms if they steal, rape, or murder. we as a society have set up these "rules", meanwhile ryan and others who support "PRO-ABORTION" like to make it about an argument of choice when in all reality its not so cute and nice to talk about a baby having a heart beat one moment and the next being torn apart by a vacuum. please ryan, do us a favor: don't call it pro-choice because that is an insult to common sense and other people's intelligence. say it like is, don't hide behind the banner of pro-choice, because no offense, until abortion becomes illegal, doesn't every women already have a choice.


----------



## honkerslayr (Dec 14, 2006)

migrator mafia said:


> Ryan wrote:
> 
> 
> > To be clear, It is not a child unless it can survive on it's own outside of the womb without artificial medical assistance. That is how the medical designation of considering a fetus in the 3rd trimester a viable entity, that posessed advanced feature beyond a cluster of cells.
> ...


Migrator Mafia kind of brought up an interesting point.

Consider this a human being that was born, and was absolutely incapable of physically taking care of themselves w/out help or was not able to survive without help. Ryan are you saying that they should fall under the abortion category too?? Just because they can't take care of themselves I guess they aren't considered a human being right?........WRONG!!! well should we just do away with them also since they can't help themselves as like a fetus which is the same exact thing, IMO most definetely not! But in yours maybe we should.

This is very contradicting to your post of a person outside of the womb being able to take care of themselves, because not all of them can. I'm just trying to make the comparison between the two because they are damn near if not the same thing.

I understand this topic is everyone's opinion. But if you view it this way it kind of excludes the church's view and compares the two. But morals come into play with this comparison and you can't tell me you would decide against it unless you are a downright cold blooded person. I would like to think of what others might think of this comparison.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I guess I dont really care either way. Im more of a "not meddle" in other peoples affairs kind of guy. Thats kind of my thoughts on gay marriage too.

I DO have a problem with women who use abortion as a form of "contraceptive", as in, "oh crap, im knocked up again, well ill just go down to the free clinic". I dont think we all need to pay for a women who cant keep her legs closed or doesnt know what a condom is.

But, accidents happen (condoms, the pill, arent 100% effective), rape happens, etc etc. I guess as long as its not a "regular" type occurance for a women, I dont care. Its not my place to tell them what they can and cant do, as I dont like someone telling me what kind of freedoms I have (i.e. take my guns away). Personaly, if it was my kid, I would encourage keeping it (but again, im just a man and have no say in the matter :roll: ).

As for seperating a fetus from a "human", I think its much easier to say if the fetus can survive outside the mothers body without incubators, tubes, and machines breathing for it, than its a human. If not, its a fetus completely reliant on another body for survival.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

The bottom line is that the "fetus is not a person" argument is usually argued by two kinds of people. Those who have dealt with an abortion personally and use this line to rationalize their guilt, and extreme femi-nazis wo are so caught up in "not letting a man tell me whats what" that they dive into the abortion argument even though as lesbians they will likely never face this situation themselves anyways.

FWIW, my 2nd child was born at the end of the second trimester, and he was alive from conception, almost died at birth, and is now a pain in my *** I wouldnt trade for anything.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I REALLY don't want to make this a debate, but since Omegax quoted me I thought an explanation was owed.

Omegax wrote:


> It's not an issue so much of SCOTUS determining what is or is not a human life, it's them acknowledging that there is no one correct definition. You define it based on your interpretation of God's will, good for you. However, that certainty can't be used in a legal context. Even God's will can be interpreted differently, I mean what about Exodus 21:22-24? Causing a miscarriage is not worthy of an eye for an eye penalty (in other words it's not murder). There are also a TON of passages that suggest that breathing defines "life". It's all open to interpretation.


Like I said before, the debate is NOT about whether it's human or not. My state and many others are very clear about that. As I write this I'm wondering if there is ANY subject less likely to be taken lightly than abortion, so how ironic that you chose to mention theology. I do NOT want to go there!!! But I will say that if you really meant to infer that it isn't really murder if it's not punished by the same, then by your definition Cain did not "murder" Abel. But if you believe in the Bible you know he, in fact, did.

I actually have never bought into the whole "eye-for-an-eye" thing...for what it's worth.

But all things considered Omegax, I appreciate your post and respect your opinion.

To migrator mafia, those 7 week old hands look human because they ARE human.

To crna, my mention of God has nothing to do with a religious view. I believe we may be in agreement on that. I actually am sickened by attempts to turn God's law into State law. I mentioned God because I believe He is responsible for all life, and as such the only One who can take it away. But more specifically to the point here, He created THAT life...it doesn't magically turn into a person a little while later.

To Barebackjack. I almost agree with you. The problem is the real victim is NOT the mother...it's the baby. So as much as I believe in letting people do anything they want to until it hurts another, well, if the gov doesn't protect that baby from it's own mother...who will? Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone else (or does it?  ), so I could give a rats ***. But abortion kills the absolute most helpless life I can think of, and that makes it the business of the gov...in my humble opinion.

And lastly, to Ryan. I'm not going to bother pasting all the :bs: contained in your last regurgitation of half-truths and twisted thinking, but I do think it's time to explain to you what I've known all along....that you don't know squat about laws in my state, and it might be a good idea to do some reading before you boldly proclaim someone is wrong from over 2000 miles away.

I believe the following clearly shows why I explained the hypothetical scenario of a woman being killed in an auto accident on her way to the clinic.

Proving Ryan wrong is like kissing a woman when you're the only man on the island...not much challenge to it. But I wanted to show the rest of you the hypocrisy of the law.

And for the record, IL has this to say about a fetus......

"Unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth.

Is there any room for confusion there?

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720Â ILCSÂ 510/) Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.

(720 ILCS 510/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 81‑21) 
Sec. 1. It is the intention of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois to reasonably regulate abortion in conformance with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court of January 22, 1973. Without in any way restricting the right of privacy of a woman or the right of a woman to an abortion under those decisions, the General Assembly of the State of Illinois do solemnly declare and find in reaffirmation of the longstanding policy of this State, that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws and Constitution of this State. Further, the General Assembly finds and declares that longstanding policy of this State to protect the right to life of the unborn child from conception by prohibiting abortion unless necessary to preserve the life of the mother is impermissible only because of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and that, therefore, if those decisions of the United States Supreme Court are ever reversed or modified or the United States Constitution is amended to allow protection of the unborn then the former policy of this State to prohibit abortions unless necessary for the preservation of the mother's life shall be reinstated.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, I am back, but only for a short time. I have only tomorrow to pack for the Badlands. Pack, get groceries, try to bend the right front wheel on the four wheeler straight etc.

This is an interesting subject, and the world is full of hypocrisy isn't it. Our scientists at the south pole found a rock that is a fragment from Mars ( do chunks of earth break off too?) that has a single cell organism in it and then say that proves there has been life on Mars. However, here on earth millions of cells are not an organism??????

Csquare wrote:


> I work with a guy who's wife counsels women who have had abortions.





> And believe me when I say they DO view it as killing a child. Just one other way the women's rights groups show their true colors by not warning women of what other women have already taught us.


Ryan wrote:


> Believe ME when I say they DON'T! This is so incredibly callous of you to make such a blanket statement. I don't know why you consider yourself worthy of speaking on behalf of women whose morals you don't share. It is audacious of you to believe you understand anything about them. Please stop while you are ahead.


Believe ME??? As in just take your word for it? Sorry, I too have talked with professionals that work in counseling. Sometimes women have no ill affects, sometimes no psychological affects for years, some after ten years, some after 20 years, some after their first live child do have ill affects. Although some have no affect, most will have a range from little to very much affected. Some take their own lives.



> I don't know why you consider yourself worthy


Ouch!!
Even in the context it was used it is starting to get nasty. I'm not going to start guessing why your emotional about this, but if it bothers you Ryan you perhaps shouldn't read it. I'm not being a smart ***, I am serious. I suspected it was one of the reasons your so passionate about Palin.

Some don't like to talk about this, but it is perhaps necessary to look forward. I am sure we will see the constitution challenged in the short future. We have often seen the second amendment challenged, and different supreme court judges can take that second amendment and twist it into something meaningless. Likewise any other amendment. Also we will perhaps see abortion challenged many more times in the future. It will pay to keep your eye on things.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Welcome back, Plainsman. Can you tell you were missed?

I think one thing that can be taken from this is that the viability aspect of Roe V Wade is not what has been adopted into law. At least not to the extent many would otherwise believe. In many cases, due to the 1973 ruling, states simply "ignore" how the abortion violates the law, as in my state, and I believe in ND also, but it in no way affects how they view the fetus in any other context. Even at the Federal level with the unborn victims of violence act of 2004 the hypocrisy is clear.

But just like above, I say all this only to explain how I have arrived at my opinion. Opinions are copacetic in this format.....aren't they? :wink:

Oh, and just for the record, leaving out the preceeding sentence in your quote of me above makes it less than obvious I was talking about those women who never get over the guilt when I said "they" do view it as killing a child. But you're right in that I should have left out the "believe me" part.

I was in a hurry, and this topic does tend to bring out a little passion.  ... Sorry.

And speaking of Ryan, do you know if he and Benelliman are related?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But you're right in that I should have left out the "believe me" part.


Csquare it was Ryan that I was quoting the "believe me", not you, although I see you did use that phrase. I suppose that is why Ryan used it. I guess I understand now why Ryan said believe me.

I think there is debate about laws, morals when religion is missing. We often see religion condemned, but without it nothing is wrong. Without religion is murder wrong? I think it's wrong because it says so in the ten commandments, not because man says it is.

I had 42 hours of psychology in college. I have never used it other than dealing with people on a personal level. However, when I get the chance I do enjoy speaking with people who do practice it. From what I can understand is there are so many varying degrees of remorse for abortion, and complete lack of remorse that many do not understand those aspects. In areas where religion holds much importance there is more remorse in later years. Often religion comes with age, and some women feel no remorse until they are in their 40's or even 50's. In communities where religion is lacking there is often no remorse.

There are many who fight for abortion rights because they truly feel it is their right to destroy a fetus. Interestingly some who have had abortions fight for abortion rights, and some fight against it. Even more interesting is there are two personality types that have had abortions, or their partners have and they fight for abortion rights. Number one is a person who is considerate and doesn't want abortion outlawed because then they will feel guilt. The second is the self centered who feels no guilt and doesn't want society telling them they did anything wrong. Both of these types are struggling with their conscience, but will never admit it.

A complex subject for certain and one that is not about to go away. I don't think McCain will have any affect on abortion as it stands now, but I think Obama will push for partial birth abortion again.

If people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and have an abortion it isn't as much of our business if they pay out of pocket. In that instance we have no blood of the innocent on our hands. However, when the government pays for it then it becomes our business because they make us part of it. I will fight tooth and nail to not be part of it. I'll hold your hand all the way to the gates of hell, but your on your own past that point.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

My daughter's degree is in Psychology, and she's studying for her masters as we speak, so we have had some interesting discussions on this topic. Those discussions have only been made more "interesting" by virtue of the fact she has many of her mother's leftist tendencies, and I am so far right, as McCain says, I can't reach the other side from where I am. So contrary to what some might think..that I hate all liberals, you can see that I love some of them so much I would gladly give my life for them. :wink:

But for the record, she is still pro-life. But she has a very interesting perspective on how abortion affects other social issues.

We could start a whole new discussion about the difference between "wrong" and "illegal". I agree that murder is wrong because God says so.....just like adultery. But I believe that murder is illegal because gov has a duty to protect us from others, but worrying about where each of our souls spends eternity should be left entirely up to each of us...not the gov.

Anyway, anyone who's on this thread trying to change someone else's mind is wizzin into the wind. It's not gonna happen here.

Have fun in the badlands.


----------

