someone here said the death penalty needs to be an option.... dead wrong. I am an ex cop and I can tell you that our criminal justice system is so flawed that no one.... and I mean no one should be executed for their crimes. There are too many mistakes that have been made in the past... where innocent people have been executed to allow for this to continue. Also...there is no benefit to society in executing a criminal. There is nothing about the death penalty that acts as a deterrent to other criminals... nothing. The cost of executing a criminal far outweighs the cost of housing them for life in solitary confinement. People would advocate cutting down on the number of appeals to lower the cost of execution... that would only result in more mistakes.
I worked the front lines in the battle on crime and can tell you that it is a mistake of monumental proportions.

And anyone that is in favor of a womens right to kill a baby, I would suggest doing a google search for abortion pictures so that you can see what it is that you are advocating. Ignorance is dangerous.

I don't especially think that this is a productive conversation as I don't think that anyone ever listens or changes views on this, but I also don't feel that anyone has represented my point of view. So here we go.

Society only has so many resources to invest in the next generation and I don't care nearly as much about unborn children as unloved children. I think it's heartless to be protesting RU486 when there are children short miles away that need for love and care and role models. Perhaps putting down the sign and going to be a big brother, big sister or even adoptive parent would be more helpful to children.

For each person who says to me, "I am against abortion" I ask: "How many ethnic children have you adopted?" "How many children of drug addicts?"

Because before we start criticizing the people who abort their pregnancies, lets ask ourselves if we personally are doing everything we can to make sure that every born child is loved and raised with a loving home, good education and caring nuturing environment. If you won't raise the child, why should someone else?

There are children out there today who need your help. If you are anti-abortion, maybe you should put the keyboard down and go help the born and needy instead of responding. But the truth is, it's easy to judge and pontificate and say that people who abort a fetus are taking a life. But it's hard to help the lives that are born.

Horrible argument....taking care of children that are here should be a priority....but the state of affairs regarding that does not justify killing babies. Sorry... but that is weak!

And you are wrong... people change their mind on this topic frequently.

Mebe - I have to say that your "logic" is confusing. Those who are against abortion should somehow be responsible for all the "unwanted" children? Aren't you putting the "responsibility" in the wrong place?

I think you will find that the vast majority, if not all, proponents of "Pro-Life" rather than "Pro-Choice" are in favor of Personal Responsibility for one's actions.

If you are trying to argue that the Pro-Life supporters should take on the responsibility of raising all the unwanted children, then perhaps you are missing the point of the "Responsibility" argument that the people, especially the women since they ARE the ones who actually get pregnant, should be responsible enough to NOT engage in sex if they don't want the risk of becoming pregnant.


"Because before we start criticizing the people who abort their pregnancies, lets ask ourselves if we personally are doing everything we can to make sure that every born child is loved and raised with a loving home, good education and caring nuturing environment. If you won't raise the child, why should someone else? "

But if you wish to extend the argument that the women should have right to engage in sexual activities under all circumstances simply because it is their "right to choose," then maybe the way to control, or end, all the abortions for "convenience" would be to pass a law that all women who want to engage in sex OUTSIDE of marriage must be sterilzed. Their eggs could be harvested and put in "cold storage" should they ever marry and then want to have their own children.

How many people do you think would want to take that approach to solving the "unwanted children" problem you presented?

You should understand that you have forfeited your credibility in your proclaimed "concern" when you advocated the brutal death of an innocent human. Saying that you are concerned about a child being "loved" doesn't ring true when you admittedly don't care if his legs and head are ripped off in a gruesome abortion and tossed in the dumpster.

Please get some better talking points, because this argument is very weak. It is the same as saying a person has no right to object to child molestation unless they are willing to ADOPT that child. A very silly argument.

Sorry FH,

I generally just tack on to the bottom of whatever post was last for quick reply option unless I am quoting someone.

That was actually in response to Mys whose post did give me that impression.

I haven't had a disagreement yet with anything you have said.

I'm an athiest and I don't believe what you've described. I'm not even sure what sovereign means in this context.

You mentioned earlier in this thread how irritating it is to be told what Christians believe. It's just as irritating, as an athiest, to be told what athiests believe - particularly when I don't believe any such thing.


Ok, I can understand that. But, most people believe that what they believe IS true. If they didn't think it was true -- they probably wouldn't believe it.

So, while it doesn't confer any objective kind of truth to their beliefs -- it certainly affects their behavior towards those beliefs -- or, to put it a different way, most people behave as though what they believe is true.


Aside from the absolute fact and truth that they believe it to be true. I understand that's different from 'proving' that it is objectively true -- but it IS a true statement to say: I believe evolution is true. Or I believe the rock is god. If that's how the person really feels.


Yes, and the sincerity of your beliefs about what athiests "think" or believe does not make them true for me. Maybe you're speaking of what some other atheist has told you.

I believe what I believe is true. I also happen to believe that what you believe about Jesus Christ/god is false. I don't need to convince you that it's true or false because, as you said, what any individual believes doesn't matter in terms of the objective truth. Maybe one of us has it right. Maybe we both have it wrong. Either way, what we believe won't change the actual value of truth.

Am I getting what you're saying?


ForeverHers, with all due respect, I know what I mean and I mean what I say. I am pro choice and I am telling you what I think/believe. I don't accept your 're-definition' of my position because it's just utterly false. Like you said -- just because you believe that's what "pro choice" means doesn't mean that it's true. I am perfectly capable of stating what I believe with regard to athiesm or pro choice beliefs. I don't need you to explain to me what I think. (I need your help explaining to me what YOU think. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )



Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Noodle


Well, that's close. Not impede on others speaks to the idea that everyone in this country has a voice. It's not OK for one group to try to disenfranchise another just because they don't agree. So, I do believe it's unlawful for one group to try to silence another group. That is different than speaking your own mind.

Insisting that others agree with you is not unlawful -- it's just ineffective. It's never worked. I don't mind if people want to spend their energy doing that -- but I wouldn't recommend it to someone.

What I was saying was that both sides feel strongly about the issue. If you can, imagine that there's someone out there that feels just as strongly as you do about the opposite side of the issue. Examine how willing you are to change your mind and, then, imagine that the other person is just as willing to change his/her mind.

We live in an ordered society that contains laws (as you mentioned). Part of our participation in this society includes "voting our conscience" and "voicing our opinion." I didn't mean to say that opinions shouldn't be voiced -- what I did mean was that, often, those opinions are so entrenched that even with increased volume no one's mind is changed.

So, on the one side of the issue we have people fighting -- HARD -- to change the laws to what they think is right. Perhaps it's to eliminate or regulate abortion. You have people on the other side fighting JUST as hard to keep it legal and available. That's how the system is designed to work. There can be change but it's hard to do. Getting mad/angry/frustrated that people oppose you might be 'natural' but it is also rather short sighted, in my opinion. If you fight for/against a topic like this, you should be prepared for someone on the other side to fight just as hard to undo everything you've put energy into doing.

When it comes down to it, each person has to decide what side of the issue they're on (or take no side which often means taking the default position which currently is pro-choice because that's how the existing laws lean). It's much harder on the side pushing for change than the default position because of this.

What I was really trying to say is that the discussion gets difficult because it's a polarizing issue. People feel strongly about it and probably don't like to hear about or think about people who feel differently on an issue they feel is strongly moral. I guess I was just trying to say that I don't feel immoral for my beliefs though I can accept that you might feel I am an immoral person because of them. I act in accordance with what I think/feel/believe. I also expect you to act in accordance with what you think/feel/believe - which is to say that I wouldn't expect you to support pro-choice causes or vote that way.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Melody Lane


I imagine that a lot of things I think/believe would horrify you - probably some things even more than this.

I'm at peace with that.


Yes, actually, I can. That doesn't mean you'd agree with me or you'd think the same way. I'm not trying to convince you to think the same way that I do. I'm merely relating what I think/believe.

As I said to noodle, I don't think I'm going to change any of your minds and you aren't going to change mine. The purpose of the discussion, for me, isn't to figure out where I stand or to win new "converts" to my way of thinking. I all ready know that your arguments aren't compelling to me and mine aren't likely to be compelling to you. What I wish COULD happen was a reasoned discourse that was an attempt to find any common ground from which to work from. Neither side is going to vanish any time soon. I persist in the (possibly silly) idea that it would be a good thing if both sides could, somehow, figure out if there's anything they DO agree needs to be fixed and focus energy there rather than trying to convert each other lock, stock, and barrel.



From a pragmatic, reality-based point of view -- yes. Apparently so, since abortion is legal in this country.



Yes. The unborn are not given equivalent rights as the born. Children do not have access to all the rights as adults.

Some people are undoubtably "more equal" than other people in our society.


The people who get to decide are lawmakers and, sometimes, judges. Ostensibly, that is supposed to translate into the "will of the people" working through those venues.

I hope I cleared up your confusion.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest.

mkeverydaycnt

I did. You're right. It doesn't need to be an option. I retract that.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

My largest arguament with the prochoice movement is that it focusses soley on the rights of one indivual while completely ignoring the rights of the other.

No one has the right to take a womans choice away from her...but she has the right to take the choice away from the child?

That does not follow any sort of logic. Not when it's potentially death we are talking about.

Do parents have the right to kill their children?

The ONLY explanation is that the "child" is not a child and therefore has no rights.

Yet there is no proof that this is the case.

I'm baffled by the refusal to actually visit the issue of whether or not the fetus is a child.

If it's not I have no problems and do not understand why people believe it is a bad choice or should be limited in any way.

Who cares? I could schedual a mole to be removed on the same day to save time.

It's the disconnect that I sit in wonderment at.

Not anger, or frustration even.

That would be like shaking my fists at the wind..this issue is so big....much bigger than me and waaaaay outside of my control...but almost shock at the knee jerk dismissal.

I have brought it up several times...not one pro choice person has responded with anything BUT reiterating the womans need to have choices.

Would a prochoice person be able to have the same opinion if indeed they were confronted with physical evidence?

Mys..do you think you could look at body parts...recognizable ones such as faces and arms and legs...cut up..and consider that the fetus/child may have EXPERIENCED being cut up or pulled apart and STILL believe that a woman has the right to make that choice?

I'm not saying you couldn't. Maybe you can.

We refuse to put ourselves in the perpective of the child...only the woman. Why?

I think lots of people discuss that -- there's just lots of disagreement.

I tend to draw the "line" at the point where the child is able to survive outside the womb -- and that time is becoming earlier and earlier. In fact, I've often wondered if anyone's considered the possibiliy of removing the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus and creating an "implantation bank" for infertile couples. I'm not sure we have the technology to do this, though it seems we've got to be getting close.

I wonder if that would satisfy either side...


The main limitation(s) I'm concerned with are 1.) prevention and 2.) forcible abortion (like China did for 2nd children). Other than that, I don't argue that much for limitations.


Yes. Does that make you feel better?

I doubt it.


In some ways I do put myself in the perspective of the child. There are worse things, in my opinion, than a quick, early death. Even at the outside (if it lasts a few minutes, for example) there are worse types of death that I can imagine. Maybe I just have a really gruesome imagination.


Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

To all who replied re my situation, I thank each of you for your kind thoughts, and find comfort in them.

Well..I can imagine being eaten by a shark...but I'd be pretty upset if the laws allowed someone else to decide that I was lunch that day just 'cause.

You bring up an interesting point concerning viability.

You know...an embryo can survive outside the womb...that technology exists and has existed for quite some time.

We lack the correct conditions to bring a child to term outside the womb...but we can pull what is considered a *living* and *viable* embryo out and then implant it elsewhere.

Which pretty much makes survival outside the host womb completely possible within hours of conception. Prior even to implantation.

This, IMHO, makes you a bad person. The fact that you can say that even if the baby experienced pain... and being pulled apart... and you would still be okay with that... you are a sad excuse for a human.

It's one thing for a person to be ignorant of what they are doing... quite another to be fully aware of the harm they are inflicting and still being okay with someone having that choice. Absolutely disgusting.

I'm sure its not horrible to you at all. It's someone else's body being ripped to shreds. I betcha many folks, including you, would not make a "choice" to have their OWN body ripped apart, though, do you?


I would like to see a well "reasoned" defense of killing the unborn, but sadly, I never have. I don't believe there IS such a defense, because killing the innocent is indefensible. I wish to GOD there was a defense! But there is not. Believe me, I looked and looked for years because I did not want to give up my pro-abortion stance. [life long pro-abortionist until 90's] I stood in INDICTMENT with the realization of the true nature of abortion and it was not fun. It pains me to this day. All of the bumper sticker rationales I was taught growing up fell apart under MINOR scrutiny; I just ran out of lies and excuses. A person can only lie to themselves for so long.


Agree. Choice is not really "choice" at all; for only for a selected few. It is might makes right, survival of the fittest. Throw the unwanted into the dumpster. A nazi mentality. And we need to admit this truth.


Right, and some are so unequal that we can kill them and dispose of them in dumpsters. BY LAW.

But, we already know this. The question at hand is if this is RIGHT? CAN IT BE DEFENDED?

I have to side with Mel and MEDC here.

>ahem<

[wink wink]

What's next.

How about: Did George Bush steal the 2000 presidential election??

Discuss amounst yourselves.

Just trying to lighten the place up a bit with a new topic.

It is Friday night afterall.

Mr. Wondering

Sorry Noodle. I agree with you too OK???? Happy now????