So.... exactly how not religious does believing in God and that Jesus died for your sins make you? I guess you're not religious because you also blaspheme regularly. *shrug*

Quote:

Personally I believe that once there is a spirit or soul then it is a human. That is what seperates us from the cow that I eat at lunch. Abortion IMO is just a way out for women who don't want to deal with their resposibilties of having sex.

Well, first of all, you're saying that once there is a spirit or soul, it is a person, correct? The problem with that is, once again, it is impossible to prove when that happens, and therefore infinitely debatable.

There are some who believe it is conception, some who believe it is when the first heartbeart occurs or brainwave activity starts, or the first motion is recorded, and still others believe that the soul is introduced at the moment of birth. Who is correct? No one knows, and we never will, so that argument is as pointless as it is tiresome.

As for abortions being for women who, "don't want to deal with their resposibilties of having sex", that is a very bold, rude statement. You should consider framing your opinions a little more constructively.

Say that to a rape victim.

This will be my last post about this, but being "religious" is a term that is overused. religious is defined as devout, or concerned with religion(which is defined as a specific system of beliefs) So if you use the word to discribe anyone who is not an athiest then yes I am "religious." But I am not legalistic, which is what I think of when I hear religious. The no sex no drugs no long hair or shorts all sorts of weird things. I try to live by one rule and that is love one another. and yes I have been passionate about what I believe and yes I may have been carried away.



Sure

There are always special circumstances, but they do have morning after pills that are good up untill 5 days after so they can get that. Also the women who's lives are at risk or danger should also be able to abort.

Yeah I have already talked about that earlier, and it is something that cannot be proven, so it is really a waste of time trying to argue.

Actually, that was my fault. I was only partly paying attention when I read it. When I go back and look at what you originally posted, I realize that I had a stupid moment.

Rape and Incest cases are exceptable for abortion, only problem that is no leg to stand on when trying to justify the entire practice seeing as to 1) conception rarely takes place during rape and 2) as a whole rape and incest only about for a FRACTION of a PERCENTAGE of all total rapes. How do you justify the other 99.95% of all other abortions?

REMOVED

Be nice.

I was just told that many of you wouldn't understand the warning I just gave for what it was. I think you all get it. However, just to make sure we are all on the same page here, let me be a bit more obtuse.

Stop it.

Questions?

REMOVED

I think the point that he was trying to make was that this is rapidly degrading into petty bickering instead of real discussion.

REMOVED

If we went by this mentality, no one would ever be allowed to discuss abortion or other subjects that could possibly degenerate into flaming and petty bickering.

We leave these threads here and open because, each time, we want to give you YET ANOTHER chance to prove that mentality wrong and prove that you CAN discuss these subjects without the thread collapsing into crap. Sometimes it's successful, other times it's not. But saying "what did you expect?" when we point out that the discussion has left the realm of acceptability is *hardly* reasonable. I suppose we should just not moderate TFP at all, after all, what do we expect on an internet forum? Of course there will be childish behavior.

Everyone: lay off the snide remarks and petty bickering and get back to mature discussion of the subject (preferably the original subject), or this thread won't stay open much longer.

Here's what i don't understand(among other things). Why, if "murdering" unborn fetuses (feti?) is such a travesty, do many make the distinction between a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest and one resulting from consensual sex? If being anti-abortion is really about everyone having a chance to be born, why should the circumstances of conception even come into play?

I see it as more of a compromise, plus due to the very nature of rape and incest its very hard to justify. Having all abortion removed would be ideal for me, as all life as value. But like I said cases of rape and incest are extremely rare, I could conceivably allow it if I could eliminate the other 99+% of one of the most inhumane and barbaric practices to ever come about.

Can you link or tell of the source of you statisics?

Here's one site that puts it at 1%.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bi...s/a0027730.cfm

I know Mods like us posting the content, but the text of the site has some weird dimensions.

At any rate it was hard finding an accurate way to word for the search on google. Most of the sites that came up were all pro-life sites, which I'm sure most of you would consider biased. But the fact is it is accurate.

The original subject was lost by the second post, but no matter - i pretty psyched to have started a thread that evolved into 2 pages, even though half of it is petty bickering.

If abortion is murder, is jerking off manslaughter? I mean, those are literally millions of lives that die a cruel death on my hand towel. I'm right up there with Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge.




*wonders if his attempt at levity mixed in with a real point actually worked... then goes back to jerking off.

Okay....back on topic.

Matthew- tell me where I stand with "pretty much 100% certainty.

I am Democratic:

I am a Republican:

I am Libertarian:

I am Green:


Lets see just how accurate you can be. I am sure we will all be able to guage the level of accuracy for you. Lets just stick to four basic issues.

The Iraq war.
Healthcare.
Economy.
Homeland security.

(note the purposeful lack of abortion debate, as that belongs in religion if people wish to ignore the science)

The thread was about why democrats in general are against the war, and republicans in general are for the war. If you'll look at every thread that's ever been posted in here, this assertion certainly isn't contradicted. But whatever:

The Iraq war: Democrat -against; republican - for
healthcare: Universal - privatized
Economy: need something a little more specific
Homeland security: as it related to the patriot act: against/for

(exactly what scientific data are you referring to?)
abortion: for / against

This wasn't about the green party or libertarians. I'm not even sure where your argument is coming from. Are you suggesting that political affiliation gives no indication as to where in general one stands on a # of issues?

Again the question was, I would think that the Iraq war would transcend party lines, but it apparently doesn't, and was wondering if anyone had any suggestion as to why it doesn't.

You can't passionately defend the right to live of every unborn child on the basis on the inherent value of life and then turn around and argue that children who were concieved through tragedy don't deserve to live. Well, you can, but doing so pokes holes in the idea that you do, indeed, care about the plight of a fetus. In the words of the anti-abortion crowd, allowing any form of abortion means that you advocate the "murder" of innocent fetuses.

Like I said it would be ideal for all abortion to be removed. I don't see that happening ever though. But thing is, the "choice" crowd shrieks and hollers and often tries to justify the practice as a whole on rape and incest. So I would leave the 1% +/- so they will be happy, and we can eliminate the other 99%. Also I know as a whole this would be more favorable to the country.

Fair enough - but I generally try to leave that aspect out of debate for arguments sake (at least in the beginning) because as soon as someone hears that from the right to choose camp you're seen as a "fanatic" and in their mind everything is you have said is discredited. Double edged sword i suppose. I don't believe you can justify the 90 some odd percent of abortions that take place for social reasons, by citing extreme cases.

So it's really all politics?

Isn't everything?

Okay....back on topic, again.

I think what you are actually describing is Ideology in general. If someone is against needless killing of innocent people, they will likely go with a party that is not in support of such. The underlying belief structure of any one person, will send them in one direction or another, in hopes of bringing the rest of the population around to their way of thinking. Also , the level of personal experience and the extent to which any issue effects the world will define the attitudes of many.
Example:

I find killing to be disgusting, and rarely find it justified.
I find corruption in government everywhere I look.
I dislike the current state of healthcare in this country.
I am not a Democrat.

I accept that government must control parts of the population.
I think Gun ownership is acceptable.
I will stand behind my country in war.
I am not a republican

I honestly think it is an erronous generalization to place people in a party because of the way they think, but if it helps to simplify an extremely complicated process, so be it.

By the way.....My post was not an attack on you, merely an attempt to get back on a good topic. But, it seems we would all rather argue over wht is a religious issue at heart. The scientific data pertains to the timing and attributes that define a human being, and the likely level of sentience a fetus can show during gestation. This information is well documented, and is used to back up the roe v. wade descision. Should you require the Data, I will happily research it and post it for you.

Likewise, I didn't take it that way.

but yeah, I'd be very interested in that scientific documentation. it seems that you are already suggesting that to be alive one must be "conscious".

am i correct in interpreting you see that as a trait more given to democrats than republicans?

Unfortunately, as someone who does not really care much for either party, I would have to answer "yes". Observation to date has shown a bias inclined towards violence which is more pronounced in those who claim Republican as a party status. That is not to say Democrats are a non-violent bunch, as that too would be far more generalization than I am comfortable with.
In my opinion there is just more of the Gun/Capital punishment/War mentality in the Republican Party. This can be a strength, or a weakness and is often both.
I have noted attempts at diplomacy are less heartfelt, and far more brief in the current administration than in the past. I can also remember a complete lack of military strength projected by Mr. Carter, and even Ford before him. There is a balance that should be attained, It cannot be easy but must be attempted.

^
|
|

Well said. Good response to a tough question.