Bible thumping teenagers

[EL the Famous]

My personal experience with women facing the abortion question has not been a question of a 'lifestyle choice' or choice of whether a pregnancy would be convenient. Obviously I can't speak for all, but for the women I have known, it is a decision made from deep pain and a kind of debilitating desperation. Physical or emotional. To me it doesn't matter. Regardless the situations that lead to an unwanted pregnancy. And there are myriad scenarios that precede that moment of decision.

 

The only person I know who used abortion as birth control was my alcoholic sister, now dead. I won't even say how many abortions she had. And in the last years of her life, fertility became a non issue, thank God. But if I am completely honest, I have to say that I am thankful that none of those pregnancies resulted in babies being born. I mourn their little spirits, but hope that they found better places to dwell.

 

Exactly why I would never side w/ anybody taking the stance it should be completely illegal to have one. There are always situations that can't have a line drawn right through the middle...black/white, good/bad.

 

I give you props for engaging in the conversation.

[EL the Famous]

No one answered my question either.

 

in a response to both the burning building and coma question...i'll use M. Chris's statement: it's not a question of 'saving' anybody, it's a question of allowing someone to live or not. the sliding scale i keep referring to relative to this discussion is who should be allowed to continue to live and, in this case, having this child doesn't mean you will die. to make it a choice of one person over the other isn't the point.

 

to elaborate, it's a moot question...pregnancy is not an 'either/or' scenario like the burning building. if it was question of having the child or the mother dying, then it's an apt comparison.

[MrRain422]

That's not true though. If you dispute the idea of a 'sliding scale of existence' (I think this term is an oversimplification, but for the sake of argument), then those embryos should be exactly as worthy of being saved as the baby, maybe moreso since there are 12 of them.

[EL the Famous]

That's not true though. If you dispute the idea of a 'sliding scale of existence' (I think this term is an oversimplification, but for the sake of argument), then those embryos should be exactly as worthy of being saved as the baby, maybe moreso since there are 12 of them.

 

when did this become a debate on whose worthy of being saved versus whose unworthy of being allowed to live? there is a big difference and it's the sliding scale specfic to that discussion i'm referring to.

 

does that make sense? if you are asking if i think that embryos shouldn't be disposed of, i already answered that as well (no).

[ikol]

Thanks to those gents that answered miss chris' question. And ikol you of all people are NOT exempt

 

0

[MrRain422]

when did this become a debate on whose worthy of being saved versus whose unworthy of being allowed to live? there is a big difference and it's the sliding scale specfic to that discussion i'm referring to.

 

does that make sense? if you are asking if i think that embryos shouldn't be disposed of, i already answered that as well (no).

 

Well, my hypothetical is really a lot more relevent to arguments from a position that is much more strongly anti-abortion than yours (I threw it out there as a general query, not specifically to you). A lot of the anti-choice arguments stem from the viewpoint that life begins when the egg is fertilized, and that a zygote/fetus is a human life. If this position is strictly followed, then it's a pretty complicated question to answer (and really, the answer should probably be to save the petri dish, as 12 lives would be more valuable than one). And yet whenever I've posed the question to strict pro-lifers, they, like any sane person, choose to save the baby.

[Good Old Neon]

if you find abortion to be murder...shut up, keep your head down and just don't get one. awesome. deep, thoughtful discussion on the matter indeed.

 

and the vegetarion analogy would be more weighty if i was eating human flesh or actually slaughtering the animal itself, but whatever.

 

what's your stance on gun control?

 

That was intended to be somewhat tongue in-cheek

[EL the Famous]

Well, my hypothetical is really a lot more relevent to arguments from a position that is much more strongly anti-abortion than yours (I threw it out there as a general query, not specifically to you). A lot of the anti-choice arguments stem from the viewpoint that life begins when the egg is fertilized, and that a zygote/fetus is a human life. If this position is strictly followed, then it's a pretty complicated question to answer (and really, the answer should probably be to save the petri dish, as 12 lives would be more valuable than one). And yet whenever I've posed the question to strict pro-lifers, they, like any sane person, choose to save the baby.

 

but isn't there a difference that the result is pre-mediatated in one and not in the other? you control every step of the process that goes into getting to the aborted child...in the other, it only becaomes a question of choice once you were placed into the scenario to make it.

 

it's not really a solid hypothetical...at what stage life begins is only part of the equation and choosing to save the existing child doesn't really make a case against a pro-life stance.

[EL the Famous]

Do I think tighter restrictions should be implemented to control their distribution

[Good Old Neon]

Well, my hypothetical is really a lot more relevent to arguments from a position that is much more strongly anti-abortion than yours (I threw it out there as a general query, not specifically to you). A lot of the anti-choice arguments stem from the viewpoint that life begins when the egg is fertilized, and that a zygote/fetus is a human life. If this position is strictly followed, then it's a pretty complicated question to answer (and really, the answer should probably be to save the petri dish, as 12 lives would be more valuable than one). And yet whenever I've posed the question to strict pro-lifers, they, like any sane person, choose to save the baby.

 

I would add to this

[Good Old Neon]

why?

 

I am fully in favor of a federally mandated waiting period and a thorough background check. From what I understand, firearms can be purchased at gun shows without undertaking either of these limited safety measures. Someone once said, anyone requiring immediate access to a firearm

[ikol]

I would add to this

[EL the Famous]

And that an actual life holds greater weight than a potential life

[bjorn_skurj]

Can we bring in the part where we discuss how some parts of the crime rate have fallen since abortion has been legalized?

[Chendizzle]

Ok we've covered religion, abortion, and now gun control, I propose we move along and tackle the death penalty, gay marriage, global warming, and health care. Of course we will end with a symposium on George W. Bush. Sound good?

[ikol]

Can we bring in the part where we discuss how some parts of the crime rate have fallen since abortion has been legalized?

 

So the death penalty is a deterrent.

[Good Old Neon]

Even if there is a sliding scale of existence, it doesn't necessarily follow that fetus has no right to life or that the mother's desire not to have a child outweighs the fetus's right to life. The only thing it necessarily implies is that if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, then the mother's right to life outweighs the child's.

 

I

[Atticus]

I am fully in favor of a federally mandated waiting period and a thorough background check. From what I understand, firearms can be purchased at gun shows without undertaking either of these limited safety measures. Someone once said, anyone requiring immediate access to a firearm

[Good Old Neon]

but aside from a termination due to legitimate health concern for the mother...how is her life and/or rights being infringed upon by having the child?! that's why i think it's a red herring to the debate.maybe the term sliding scale of existence is the problem...because it sounds like it's more a sliding scale of justifiable death. murder if you think it's a life and getting a mole removed if you don't.that doesn't answer why, you are just restating your postion w/ more detail. why shouldn't someone be given access to said firearm w/out a mandated waiting period/background check (AKA government regulation)?

I'll recyle my last post to answer your first question:Removing abortion as a choice, thereby forcing a woman to carry a baby she does not have the wherewithal to care for can be just as damaging to her life as her life being endangered by a risky pregnancy. It can also have the cumulative effect of jeopardizing the welfare of children she may already have through lack of food, shelter

[Artifex]

I see what you mean.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGrltT54OsA...ted&search=

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PUQATCcQ0A...ted&search=

 

This last one is especially telling - listen to what Pastor Ted has to say at the end. The former head of the evangelical movement seems to contradict what you have stated above.

 

 

Yes. That is one 'pastor'. One prominent ( though now defunct), political figure. And a total slimeball. I can think of far more Chirstians that find a person like him to be way off from the Christian ideal than people who support him.

 

I can't think of a single Christian ( evangelical or otherwise) that I know that dosen't find 'Jesus Camp' completley disturbing.

[Good Old Neon]

So the death penalty is a deterrent.

 

Are you suggesting you are ok with the death penalty?

 

And if so

[EL the Famous]

I

[Good Old Neon]

Yes. That is one 'pastor'. One prominent ( though now defunct), political figure. And a total slimeball. I can think of far more Chirstians that find a person like him to be way off from the Christian ideal than people who support him.

 

I can't think of a single Christian ( evangelical or otherwise) that I know that dosen't find 'Jesus Camp' completley disturbing.

 

You

[EL the Famous]

Is there an exception to

[Good Old Neon]

sidestepping/removing abstinence and adoption as a choice, relative to the debate may make that a more legitimate point...but reality dictates otherwise.

 

my point on gun control, was that the one of the most desired effects of said regulation (note that i didn't say abolishment) is to reduce the amount of premeditated deaths...if anything, to stop/curtail the rash decision to end a life. some amount of regulation could be argued here...an equally rash decision can be made in this case as well. granted, if you don't think that abortion is ending a life, then my point is moot as well.

 

really, i don't like how either side finds the others stance so incredulous or flawed...both sides are flawed and there is no absolute answer. no amount of religion OR science can change that...but, to say that there are no legitimate alternatives illustrates how personal accountability for our actions and decisions have gone out the window. hold the goverment/administration/religious groups accountable...only if you yourself follow the same set of rules.

 

You