seven8s

Evidence?

Evidence?

If after effects are nonexistent, then they are nonexistent, beneficial or otherwise. Are there after effects?

fanucon

are you a woman whos had an abortion?

my aunt was administered to a mental institution after having her abortion

what kind of Evidence do you want

you assume that having your child destroyed while inside your body cant affect your subconcious thought?

wheres your evidence that it doesnt?

but i agree
if there is no after affects then theres no resistance on the woman side but there still is resistance on the behalf of the child.

Chris Porter

I'm not making any connection to religion, so I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm saying that people that are pro-life because they value life, and yet accept abortion in the case of rape and incest are hypocrites, and I futher posit that the amount of hypocrisy leads me to believe the issue is not one of "valuing life" but more likely "controlling others" essentially, women. Has nothing to do with religion other than the fact that the major religions of the world do in fact see a need to control the sexual freedom of women. But as far as pro-life is concerned, one can certainly be pro-life, and indeed believe the issue is about the value of life.

Chris Porter

The value of life begins when someone decided to value life. Some may value only certain types of life, some may have a hierarchy of things that they value, and life is not at the top, and so on.

fanucon

i was using Religion because thats usually the majority of advocates for Pro Life being religious people. but you can feel free to ignore it

the problem with God debate Pro Life/Pro Choice debate is that perspective is everything

i dont expect people to hear what i say and say Damn i should be pro life now too


its a personal opinion and noone can win

fast

You need to spell out what you mean, for I do not understand what you mean, so you may say that I'm lacking since what I am lacking is an understanding of what you said.

It doesn't make sense that the conditions necessary for something to be justified includes whether or not an act makes one happy. For example, suppose happiness is brought to a deranged individual who kills his victims. That happiness is brought does not therefore indicate that the evil actions are justified.

I have not undergone nor have I performed any abortions (lately or otherwise), and I fail to understand what that has to do with anything.

When a person uses scare quotes, it usually indicates that a person is using a term in an alternative manner or unusual way, and since that you have used the term, "right" in single quotes (or scare quotes), then I suspect that by 'right', you don't mean what the term, "right" means; furthermore, since you have not specified exactly what your alternative meaning is, then I am left to guess at what you may mean.

Perhaps you think there might be a difference between what is right and what I believe is right, and if you do, then you are correct. I acknowledge that, for it could be the case that what I think is wrong in fact is not wrong, so that I think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean that I am correct; thus, I might be in error.

Either way, hence, whether or not I am incorrect or not, seems to be of little consequence in regards to the specifics of what I have written.

For example, suppose I am correct and it is indeed wrong (not just wrong for me, but wrong), then do I or do I not have a duty to make for a better world by utilizing legislation to stop you from the wrongs you commit?

If what others are telling me is true, then I have no such duty, and thus what is right or wrong is inconsequential to one's political position.

If by chance I am not correct, then the issue is merely avoided. The question still stands as to whether or not a person has a moral obligation (or not) to make a political stand for what's right. So, that I might not be right such that it's false that abortion is immoral, merely undermines my question.

J-D

You're perplexed because you're framing the question the wrong way.

Anti-abortion laws don't prevent abortions. They have other consequences, and those consequences are bad ones.

If you were in a position where you actually had a choice between allowing an abortion to happen or preventing it from happening, it would be relevant whether you thought abortion was moral. But lawmakers are not in that position, and neither are you when voting.

seven8s

Perhaps I could say that, what you are lacking is knowledge in regards to the underlying issues that precipitate abortions. However, in that you used the word ‘need’ I am not comfortable saying that you lack knowledge in regards to the underlying issues that precipitate abortion.

I also read what you write and I do think that you are clever enough to know what I mean.

But for the sake of generosity, let me amuse you.

Lack causes/precedes/is need. That you know this is evidenced in the following

To state that abortion is ‘wrong’, which lead to ‘immoral’, which lead to ‘evil’ are choices of words that place an undue burden on women whose only means to abate desperate need/lack is abortion. Such words as wrong, immoral, evil suggests spiritual/mental/moral/ethical depravation of the individual woman who chooses abortion, rather then the material/physical/financial/societal/familial lack that underlies the issue of abortion.

Do you think that the decision to get an abortion is just a feeling? Iow’s no thought went into the decision?

I am not so morally depraved as to think that it does.



Comprehension? Knowledge? Understanding? Compassion? Empathy? Some might add the right to have an opinion.

That would depend on how you plan on stopping me, doesn’t it? Of course the belief that abortion is wrong, hence immoral, hence evil is not justifiable in my mind.

What is justifiable in my mind is the issue of the preservation of life. To me, duty is not about prohibiting abortion, but is more about education, job opportunities, mental/physical health & well-being, of not just individuals and their families, but of the nation as well, then the world.

I do acknowledge a strong aversion to partial birth abortion of the healthy unborn.



Did they lie, and if they did for what reason? When you go into a voting booth do you just flip a coin? Or, are you running for office and think that you have found the shore line? giggle, giggle.

Sounds like you are running for office to me. Polititians love to avoid issues

I would disagree. The question in my mind is how can a person make a stand for what is correct, political or otherwise, and why would they bother? Of course one then has to define what is correct? Correction. Is it correction that children are educated? Iow’s would education help correct their state of poverty, if poverty exists in their life? Of course one has to first ask, ‘is it correct that children live in a state of poverty? And f not how can that be amended, corrected?

How about job opportunties? Would that amend/correct poverty?

Yes, it does. So what is your question? Is it going to take us 10 pages to pop the question?

Yep! I knew it, you are running for ofice. lol

seven8s

Impertinent.

She has my sympathy, twice.

Assume nothing.

I do not assume that the pro-life movement has any concern what so ever for or on behalf of the child, or for that matter, it’s mother, nor for the terminally ill. To assume that they do makes an ass (slave) out of me.

Ghostdog

Are you?