|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problem with Legalized Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
That's a good idea too. Sex education and easy access to birth control are among the best proven methods of preventing abortion. The fact that anti-abortionists tend to oppose them is a further indication of insincerity.
Having been in that world I cannot agree with you here. They see sex outside of marriage as a sin, just as killing the fetus is a sin. It skews their thinking. They don't see supporting another sin as a valid way of preventing a sin. It is not that they are insincere in their desire to preventing the death of innocent unborn children.Control of behavior is prevention of sin, and sin is the problem in the world. They cannot condone it and that traps them into trying to get laws that limit the perceived freedoms of women. Edited by LinearAq, : spelt stuf rong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
then maybe a person of rights should be defined as a human that can survive outside the womb as i suggested earlier.
it would appear that this is what the norm has been in granting a "birth certificate". as long as a fetus requires the symbiotic relationship; the greater of the two in relation, holds and retains all rights? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LinearAq writes: It is not that they are insincere in their desire to preventing the death of innocent unborn children. I'd say self-delusion is a form of insincerity.
Control of behavior is prevention of sin, and sin is the problem in the world. They cannot condone it and that traps them into trying to get laws that limit the perceived freedoms of women. Exactly. After all this time and noise and waste of ammunition, we've come to the point: It's about controlling the women. Edited by Ringo, : Speling. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
how does that explain the fact that if you go to a catholic hospital as a pregnant woman they will not sacrifice the fetus to save your life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
I am surprised you didn't ask me to pay for all her birth control so that there would be no fetus in the first place. Frankly, that is where the anti-abortion movement fails, IMHO.
because it's not about babies. it's about sex. they don't want people to have sex unless they're making babies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
it doesnt. it explains why abortion remains an unsolved political hell. (politically speaking in as much as general understood laws)
since there is no defined law, organizations have the freedom of their own ideals, and if you exist inside them, their law is final.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
how does that explain the fact that if you go to a catholic hospital as a pregnant woman they will not sacrifice the fetus to save your life? (quote by brennakimi)
this reply was in relation to post 200 right? Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Control of behavior is prevention of sin, and sin is the problem in the world. They cannot condone it and that traps them into trying to get laws that limit the perceived freedoms of women. no. seeking to control the behaviors of people is limiting their freedom. period. just because they do it because they really, really love jesus doesn't make it any less the restriction of freedoms. and what part of
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion don't they understand? requiring people to practice your morality establishes your religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
religeon aside, goverments must have law to protect order.
it is against the law to murder. i beleive thats where the political argument begins and the religeos argument ends. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yeah, that's why i posted it as a reply to post 200.
however
why abortion remains an unsolved political hell. (politically speaking in as much as general understood laws) since there is no defined law, organizations have the freedom of their own ideals, and if you exist inside them, their law is final. makes no sense at all. abortion is not an "unsolved political hell. not at all. it is an established protection of medical privacy. there are specific allowances for medical regulation, and for the increasing interest of the state as the pregnancy advances. read the legal precedent; its not as confusing as you've been led to believe. in the end, the only reason there is any dispute about it is that, instead of seeking to regulate the medical industry in order to make abortions safer, and improving sexual education in order to make abortions rarer, these people spend their time trying to outlaw it or kill all the abortion doctors if they can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
it is a political hell. its so powerful that most politicians aviod it so their career will survive.
there has not been an established law clearly defining abortion on the goverment level, and until one does, or probrobly even after one does, the right for and against will be argued. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
religeon aside, goverments must have law to protect order. how does abortion destroy the law?
it is against the law to murder. i beleive thats where the political argument begins and the religeos argument ends. no. it's almost exclusively the religious who call abortion "murder". legally, abortion is protected as a right of medical privacy. that is, there is a small then increasing state interest in the potential life of the fetus which does not at any point surpass the woman's right to manage her health. no one should know a woman is pregnant unless a woman wants them to and no one should know if she decided not to endanger her organs unless she wants them to. it is only among the religious who believe ensoulment occurs at some invented point of "conception" who believe abortion is murder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
its so powerful that most politicians aviod it so their career will survive. i've never heard a politician avoid the issue.
there has not been an established law clearly defining abortion on the goverment level, and until one does, or probrobly even after one does, the right for and against will be argued. yes, there has.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. it's the fourth amendment. it was ratified in 1791. roe v wade applied this protection of rights to women's reproductive health. you've been lied to. we have a right to privacy. anything further than this is medical regulation. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
abortion does not destroy the law. its the answere to your assertian that a free people are "unlimited" in their choices.
if a human embreyo is classified as life, then killing it is murder under current law. religeos entities started the debate, yes, but they are makeing their point under political law. regardless of the origin of the argument, the political aspects are where its being pursued. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024