Pro-choice

Posted 880 day(s) ago by oucub2344823 Views 2074 Replies
Results 501 to 550 of 2075
Page 11 of 42 9 10 11 12 13 21
  1. #501
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,232
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    my moral belief....based on my faith.....trumps their moral belief....whatever it's based on.......
    unfortunately.....my moral belief is currently in the minority......hence our current law.....which trumps my moral belief....
    But why? Why does your moral belief trump theirs? What authority has been given to you?

  2. #502
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    You're attempting to make abortion legally murder based upon your religious beliefs. Why does your religion hold so much weight?
    Nobody is obviously stopping others with different beliefs on stopping to make it legal. Why shouldn't a person try to legally change something they don't believe in?

  3. #503
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    Yes



    Yes

    The difference between the two is that one is legally defined as murder, and the other one isn't. You're attempting to make abortion legally murder based upon your religious beliefs. Why does your religion hold so much weight?
    Laws change. If your argument is that abortion should be (not is, but should be) okay b/c it's legal, then there should never be any action to change any laws. Ever. If our parameters for deciding what is right and wrong are based on what is legal, then every law passed since the Founding should be repealed. There was a day when child **** wasn't illegal. Does that mean it is okay? Obviously not.

    No I'm not. I'm trying to explain to you why your line of thinking is flawed. Until you understand the 'why' of those that oppose abortion, you can't ever have an honest discussion with them about it. It's not religion that makes me think the unborn are alive--it's experience.

  4. #504
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    But why? Why does your moral belief trump theirs? What authority has been given to you?
    because my moral belief is "right"...and theirs is "wrong"....of that i am certain.....
    but as an individual....mine only matters in my own circumstances....which is really none since i am a man....
    i have no authority because even if i was in the majority.....the court decided (in error)......that it is the only authority in this matter...

  5. #505
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,232
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    Nobody is obviously stopping others with different beliefs on stopping to make it legal. Why shouldn't a person try to legally change something they don't believe in?
    I don't know... Why should anyone's personal beliefs be opposed on someone else? There are infinite examples I could make. This nation does literally thousands of things that go against scripture. Why throw your weight at this one? Is it because it's more important? More is at stake? It's more personal?

    I'm not trying to change your mind on any of this. I'm honestly curious about what drives ANYONE to restrict ANYTHING they disagree with.

  6. #506
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,232
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Laws change. If your argument is that abortion should be (not is, but should be) okay b/c it's legal, then there should never be any action to change any laws. Ever. If our parameters for deciding what is right and wrong are based on what is legal, then every law passed since the Founding should be repealed. There was a day when child **** wasn't illegal. Does that mean it is okay? Obviously not.

    No I'm not. I'm trying to explain to you why your line of thinking is flawed. Until you understand the 'why' of those that oppose abortion, you can't ever have an honest discussion with them about it. It's not religion that makes me think the unborn are alive--it's experience.
    Well that's the thing. I didn't say that laws couldn't change. I didn't even say abortion should or shouldn't be illegal. I specifically asked Bounce and 87 because their drive behind the issue is religious. It might not be for you, and thus this discussion would not apply to you.

    The entire point of my question was not to get anyone to say I'm right or they are wrong. I legitimately want to know why someone believes their religious belief entitles them to regulate the actions of another.. even if they do not subscribe to that same belief.

    They know sure as shit they wouldn't let Islamic or Jewish law dictate thier lives.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  7. #507
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    I don't know... Why should anyone's personal beliefs be opposed on someone else? There are infinite examples I could make. This nation does literally thousands of things that go against scripture. Why throw your weight at this one? Is it because it's more important? More is at stake? It's more personal?

    I'm not trying to change your mind on any of this. I'm honestly curious about what drives ANYONE to restrict ANYTHING they disagree with.
    Again with a simply example. Why did Michael Vick get in trouble? If he wants to kill dogs and he believes it is ok, tehre shouldn't be a law against it. Is this where you are going with all of this? I am confused on your stance. You really think that if somebody doesn't believe the same thing that you do, they shouldn't persuit any legal action?>

  8. #508
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,232
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    Again with a simply example. Why did Michael Vick get in trouble? If he wants to kill dogs and he believes it is ok, tehre shouldn't be a law against it. Is this where you are going with all of this? I am confused on your stance. You really think that if somebody doesn't believe the same thing that you do, they shouldn't persuit any legal action?>
    No, the reason I ask this is because the courts have ruled on this. I got it. You disagree with their decision. You believe they made the wrong choice. So does half of America. I just want to know why you think your religious belief is grounds to change it. Especially when fewer and fewer citizen actually practice the same. I'm just using abortion as the example because that's the thread we are in. You could apply it to anything.

  9. #509
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    I don't know... Why should anyone's personal beliefs be opposed on someone else? There are infinite examples I could make. This nation does literally thousands of things that go against scripture. Why throw your weight at this one? Is it because it's more important? More is at stake? It's more personal?

    I'm not trying to change your mind on any of this. I'm honestly curious about what drives ANYONE to restrict ANYTHING they disagree with.
    christians have been "throwing their weight" behind many things that go against scripture.....
    it's a losing battle.....that doesn't mean we should stop.....
    personally.....i try to throw Jesus' weight behind it.....
    a saved heart is the best place to start....
    fighting this in the political spectrum is a lost cause...

  10. #510
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,232
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    christians have been "throwing their weight" behind many things that go against scripture.....
    it's a losing battle.....that doesn't mean we should stop.....
    personally.....i try to throw Jesus' weight behind it.....
    a saved heart is the best place to start....
    fighting this in the political spectrum is a lost cause...
    You're probably right.

    Based on your belief, do you feel it to be okay to exempt people from your religious laws, assuming they do not subscribe to your belief and do not commit any of your crimes against your believers?

  11. #511
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    You're probably right.

    Based on your belief, do you feel it to be okay to exempt people from your religious laws, assuming they do not subscribe to your belief and do not commit any of your crimes against your believers?
    not exactly sure what you mean by "your religious laws"...
    society decides what its laws will be....
    i abide by the laws of society.....and if those conflict with what i believe are God's laws.....i abide by God's.....
    in the case of abortion....the law doesn't force me to sin against God....
    non believers will obviously do what they want....and they will be judged by God accordingly....
    i do believe my responsibility is to win hearts for Christ...and to tell believers (and non believers as well)...... the truth about all sin.....but i don't expect non believers to see it from my perspective......

  12. #512
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    Well that's the thing. I didn't say that laws couldn't change. I didn't even say abortion should or shouldn't be illegal. I specifically asked Bounce and 87 because their drive behind the issue is religious. It might not be for you, and thus this discussion would not apply to you.

    The entire point of my question was not to get anyone to say I'm right or they are wrong. I legitimately want to know why someone believes their religious belief entitles them to regulate the actions of another.. even if they do not subscribe to that same belief.

    They know sure as shit they wouldn't let Islamic or Jewish law dictate thier lives.
    The only reason I got involved in it is that I don't think they've articulated effectively that it's not a religious based opposition--it's a moral based opposition. That's why scripture is ineffectual in the discussion. The opposition to abortion for pro-life people is based in the same belief that murder is wrong--that the taking of another human life is inherently wrong, and the duty of the government is to protect life and liberty.

  13. #513
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    No, the reason I ask this is because the courts have ruled on this. I got it. You disagree with their decision. You believe they made the wrong choice. So does half of America. I just want to know why you think your religious belief is grounds to change it. Especially when fewer and fewer citizen actually practice the same. I'm just using abortion as the example because that's the thread we are in. You could apply it to anything.
    i don't get why it matters if I think a law is unjust b/c of religious views or personal views. Why does that matter? So is it ok for someone to want to change a law because they just feel like it but not ok because its what there religion says?

  14. #514
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    No, the reason I ask this is because the courts have ruled on this. I got it. You disagree with their decision. You believe they made the wrong choice. So does half of America. I just want to know why you think your religious belief is grounds to change it. Especially when fewer and fewer citizen actually practice the same. I'm just using abortion as the example because that's the thread we are in. You could apply it to anything.
    i believe the constitution was written with "God's laws" in mind......
    i believe the constitution protects the life of the unborn....

  15. #515
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    i believe the constitution was written with "God's laws" in mind......
    i believe the constitution protects the life of the unborn....
    They should have included that, probably.

    Most documents I have ever seen from the period believe rights are granted at birth. Do you have any written record of anyone, say pre-1800, arguing that rights are granted in the womb?

  16. #516

  17. #517
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a

    Pro-choice

    When do Christians believe a soul is present in a person

  18. #518
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    They should have included that, probably.

    Most documents I have ever seen from the period believe rights are granted at birth. Do you have any written record of anyone, say pre-1800, arguing that rights are granted in the womb?
    maybe an amendment is needed....

  19. #519
    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    When do Christians believe a soul is present in a person
    why is timing even important?

  20. #520
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    When do Christians believe a soul is present in a person
    Depends upon the Christian.

  21. #521
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a

    Pro-choice

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    why is timing even important?
    I don't think it is. Just fishing

  22. #522
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    I don't think it is. Just fishing
    I have read that prior to Pious IX, the Catholic Church subscribed to the idea that while basic life was begun at conception, ensoulment did not occur until later (the 40th day for males and the 80th day for females). The pope decreed in the late 1800s that conception was the benchmark, and made abortion punishable by excommunication.

    In English common law, the organism was thought not a person until "the quickening" or when the embryo becomes fetus (basically).

  23. #523
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:46 AM.

  24. #524
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,613
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Originally Posted by soonerintn View Post
    One can say every born baby was alive at conception, but they can't say every conception will result in a viable fetus or baby. So, one can't say with any certainty that life begins at conception.
    I would surmise that with regards to conception, the pro-life argument is centered around what happens specifically to zygotes and later stages of actual human development, and not around other possible products of conception (such as a molar pregnancy). So, when they're saying that "life begins at conception", they're not saying that life is the only thing that can happen at conception, but rather that when life does begin, it's at conception (agreeing with your first sentence). I don't believe the intent is to imply that living human beings are the only things that can result from conception.

  25. #525
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:47 AM.

  26. #526
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    SoonerinTN do you subscribe to the belief that life begins once there is brain activity?

    Medically it seems to be the agreement that when it ceases life ends.

  27. #527
    lokifz1's Avatar
    Posts
    1,842
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Deep end of the gene pool.

    Christian right now that's a straw man.

  28. #528
    lokifz1's Avatar
    Posts
    1,842
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Deep end of the gene pool.

    So when do the pro choice people believe abortion is no longer an option? Partial birth? Third trimester?

    Is it ok for the abortionist to cut the arms legs off an unborn baby/fetus to effect an abortion?

    What's too far for the pro choice crowd.

  29. #529
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,613
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Fair enough; we regularly beat up pro-choicers over science just as much when they talk about embryos not being human beings, compare pregnancy to a symbiotic relationship, use terms like "pre-embryo" and "fertilized egg", etc.
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:50 AM.

  30. #530
    fdubzou's Avatar
    Posts
    7,684
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska

    Pro-choice

    So if life begins at conception, does that mean we can start charging women who have miscarriages with involuntary manslaughter?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  31. #531

    Pro-choice

    Originally Posted by fdubzou View Post
    So if life begins at conception, does that mean we can start charging women who have miscarriages with involuntary manslaughter?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Next thing you know we'll be charging people that murder pregnant women with double homicides. Oh wait...

  32. #532
    .
    3 users like soonerintn's post: fdubzou, oucub23, SpankyNek

    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:47 AM.

  33. #533

    Pro-choice

    Problem with this argument is that in 10 years, that will be 20 weeks. In 20 years it'll be 15 weeks. In 25 years we will be able to grow from the zero point.
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:51 AM.

  34. #534
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:48 AM.

  35. #535
    fdubzou's Avatar
    Posts
    7,684
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska

    Pro-choice

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Next thing you know we'll be charging people that murder pregnant women with double homicides. Oh wait...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_murder

    Double murder is the act of murdering two people. This is commonly punished by back-to-back life sentences. It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered, thereby killing her unborn fetus, such as in the Laci Peterson case.[1] Even though it is not necessarily correct, the term is often attached to incidents involving higher numbers of people such as if three or four people were to be murdered.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  36. #536
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:48 AM.

  37. #537

    Pro-choice

    Seems odd to me. If its wrong in 25 years how can it be right today? Slavery didn't become wrong because of technological advances.
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:51 AM.

  38. #538
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a

    Pro-choice

    Originally Posted by fdubzou View Post
    So if life begins at conception, does that mean we can start charging women who have miscarriages with involuntary manslaughter?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Yes exactly right. Well done.

    Stick to nice suites man

  39. #539
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a

    Pro-choice

    Theres one huge whole in this line of thinking. 100 years ago a 24 week old baby could not survive. Does that mean 100 years ago a 24 week fetus did not have life but now it does?
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:52 AM.

  40. #540
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:48 AM.

  41. #541
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a

    Pro-choice

    The definition of life shouldn't change because of advances in medicine. That's ridiculous
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:52 AM.

  42. #542
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    The definition of life shouldn't change because of advances in medicine. That's ridiculous
    The definition of of the purposeful legality of ending said life is what is being discussed.

  43. #543
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    The definition of of the purposeful legality of ending said life is what is being discussed.

    based on an arbitrary point of "viability outside the womb"....
    doesn't matter what day or week you choose.......it's still a brutal act of killing an innocent unborn child.....

  44. #544
    fdubzou's Avatar
    Posts
    7,684
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska

    Pro-choice

    Disagree.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  45. #545
    .
    2 users like soonerintn's post: Aurora, brokebacksooner

    Last edited by soonerintn; July 13th, 2013 at 12:49 AM.

  46. #546
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a

    Pro-choice

    That's all irrelevant to the poin I made.

    Advances in medicine should change the definition of life
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:53 AM.

  47. #547

    Re: Pro-choice

    I thought soonerintn already conceded that point Bounce. He said that 22-24 weeks old used to not be viable. As that changes he will re-evaluate. It will never be day 0 and there is a fully formed fetus in the womb.

    Is that correct Dr. Soonerintn?
    The following users like this post: Aurora


  48. #548
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,613
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    There is no way you can prove to me that the product of conception is a 100% viable baby. You just can't because it isn't so. So life can't begin with 100% certainty at conception.[/QUOTE]
    It seems as if you mean two different things when you use the term "life"/"alive" in these quotes. Yes, a baby that is born was alive at (or shortly after) conception as science confirms; that baby's life began at conception. But then when you say, "one can't say [...] that life begins at conception" and later "[t]here is no way you can prove to me that the product of conception is a 100% viable baby," you're using a different context.

    I don't think there is anyone reasonably informed that claims all conceptions result in a viable fetus. Portraying pro-lifers as going around saying "life begins at conception" and then pointing out that not all products of conception result in life gives the appearance of beating them up because they haven't been precise in their terms (admittedly something I regularly do) when there is still a common understanding of what they really mean, at least in popular media and not in scientific texts. When a pro-lifer says that "life begins at conception," they indeed mean more accurately that "when life begins is at conception", which does not in itself exclude the possibility that there are oither possible products of conception that do not constitute life. I honestly do not believe that informed pro-lifers are deliberately intending to say that every time there is conception, a living human being results and only a living human being. They're merely agreeing with science that the start of a human being's life begins at (or shortly after) conception, when the spermatozoa and oocyte unite, other possible growths notwithstanding.

    Likewise, using the example of a molar pregnancy to discount a pro-lifer's possibly haphazard use of the general term, "pregnancy" comes across the same way. Okay, so not all conceptions result in a zygote. And not all pregnancies involve fetuses. But when pro-lifers use the word, "conception" they mean a conception that results in a successful fertilization producing a zygote, and when they use the term, "pregnancy" they mean a pregnancy that involves an actual fetus; they don't mean to use the terms more broadly in the sense that you do, such as any possible conception or a molar pregnancy.

    When you say, "life can't begin with 100% certainty at conception" there's really no argument if you mean that conception doesn't result in a life form developing 100% of the time (which is the way I read you). Because the pro-lifer is only asserting that when there is a life involved, it began at conception.

    And even if an embryo that results from conception isn't "100% viable", she's still alive in the scientific sense, even if you personally disagree that she is alive in a philosophical sense.
    Last edited by usaosooner; July 21st, 2013 at 11:53 AM.

  49. #549
    "viability" is just another attempt to muddy the waters with lies and confusion....
    there are post birth humans that will likely be described as "non-viable" in the future.....

  50. #550
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    "viability" is just another attempt to muddy the waters with lies and confusion....
    there are post birth humans that will likely be described as "non-viable" in the future.....
    They already are. Brain death equates to a state where ending ones physiological death is acceptable. Why not the same with an embryo?

Similar Threads

  1. What's my drug of choice? Well what have you got?
    By AcousticSoup in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: October 16th, 2013, 08:06 AM
  2. The Choice
    By oucub23 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2012, 04:33 PM