I was taught that in both public and Catholic school, WOO WOO.

And I read one of them. It was intriuging.

Can you elaborate?

The website is pretty intense - I knew that she had become pro-life, but beyond that I hadn't read or heard too much about it.

Personally, Roe v. Wade to me is much more about rights that should be protected, more than just a ruling on abortion. I'll support it for that reason, for the larger picture that it represents.

As far as the vengeance quote...I had always understood it the way Munchkin explained it.

Something about the site strikes me as little off...whether it's the way the site is presented or the explantations given on the site by McCorvey, I'm unsure.

I am against abortion but I won't date a girl who doesn't believe in it. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

-Rudey
--I always eat my pie and have it too...because what the hell is the point of having a pie if you can't eat it??

I guess I really can't because I'm not sure what K Sig RC meant by . I don't see how supporting something I don't believe in makes me a proud American.
I will elaborate in that I plain and simple don't think abortion is right and I will further argue that you DO have the right to choose. Choose whether or not you want to do things that you KNOW might have consequences you are unprepared to deal with. Anyway, I'm not about to get into an argument about this with anyone (not saying that's what YOU moe.ron are looking for, but just for anyone who comes with swinging fists).
That's what makes me proud as an American, to be able to say what I want.
Read the Voltaire quote in my signature, I love it.

You should know that Voltaire never said it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall was the one that wrote the quote.

Sorry, it's the political science in me.:D

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I studied political science too and I've heard that quote 9 million times, always attributed to Voltaire.

Nope, the quote was from a book called Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall about Voltaire. The book was published in 1906. Hall was paraphrasing "Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation," which Voltaire said in his "Treatise on Toleration."

I study political science right now and used my Google-Fu to come up with http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm

0.) Read snopes.com - the voltaire quote . . . not him, although it's a near-miss (not to be a nit)

Anyway here's the logic, and here's what I meant:

1.) America was founded on strong principles, principles that were truly revolutoinary for their time (and which still carry that weight today).

2.) One key premise of our founders, and the reason why we colonized this continent, was religious freedom. A necessary element of religious freedom is a government free from 'state religion'

3.) Our nation operates under a fairly strict separation of church and state (and yes, this is in the constitution for you tin foil hatters - snopes.com that one too, guys), as a result of these lofty principles

4.) Arguments for laws restricted abortion rights are usually drawn along religious lines. The reason, at the root, for this is the concept of a 'soul' - since it is impossible to dictate at what point a fertilized egg becomes a fetus becomes a human life without resorting to some sort of 'soul' concept.

therefore . . . .

5.) Laws to restrict abortion generally should be viewed as imposing a religious morality on something that doesn't carry this morality in everyone's views (religious or otherwise), and thus violate church/state separation.

So here are the alternatives:

-Impose your religious morality on others, thus pissing on the high-minded ideals of the founding of the United States of America

or

-Keep the laws like they are, then don't have an abortion if it falls outside of your morality zone.

It's pretty clear that only the second is fair, lawful, just, and intellectually sound.

Bottom line: you might be vehemently anti-abortion, and I might be vehemently anti-abortion, but there is no rational reason to impose those feelings onto others by law.

-RC
--out.

I knew that Voltaire didn't really say it, but I didn't know where the mistake originated. Thanks for the info.

Exactly.
Keep the 'consequences' of abortion up to religion. If you believe that abortion is a sin, then let God deal with them rather then the Government.

This is why RC wins at GC. You remind me of one of my old Philosophy professors. You know the bastard, he can argue any point for any stance on any given topic and always win.

Not to confuse RC with the bastard though, he just wins at GC...

Or to keep it even more simple: Don't believe in abortion... don't get one.

It's your choice.

i was wondering how long it was gonna take for you to tell me how silly i am! i do what i can, KSig RC, to be as endearing to you as possible. ;)

maybe i just don't understand what GP is talking about :(.....b/c it seemed ol' norma was saying something different than what GP was saying she was saying. did that make sense or was it too many pronouns???? she was sayin she was sayin....was sayin. i understood GP to say that roe was teaching fear by saying she couldn't look God in the face, whereas i took that as just acknowledging she was participating in something wrong in the eyes of God. nothing wrong with that in my book....shows one has a conscience. not trying to be "self-righteous" in any way... did i even state my personal relationship other than the denomination i was raised in? jussayin my opinion....am i the only one on here who can't be snippy?! :( boo! i thought i had been here long enough.......... :cool:

as far as the 2nd part of your post.....i've thought about what "choice" really means. after all, God gives us a choice to do what we will with our lives. however, i just can't honestly in my heart of hearts believe that i should just be "ok, choose what to do with your body" b/c to me, it's more than the woman's body/sin......it's about protecting those who can't protect themselves. your "proud american" comment is nice in theory, but like my posts at times ;), is too generalizing/off-handed to be taken seriously to some ppl. as for explaining in depth your logic (which is all very clear and i totally understand--i just saw that post), i still can't personally agree to it with a clear mind. it should not be legal b/c it is the taking of an innocent life and it is wrong. abortion=murder. murder=bad. roe v. wade is wrong and should be done away with. it won't be, though, so this is really a non-issue, but there ya have it. my .02. love it, hate it, think i'm a dumbass, whatever. it's all ok and i may even add you to my drunk list just b/c. :D

-sigh-

I'm sorry, I was not talking consequence of sin, I'm talking about the consequence of actions when you are unprepared to have a baby.

While you believe that life begins at conception, there are other religions (and people) who believe that life does not begin until birth. The term "life" is far too complex.

There is also a term called potential for life.

-Rudey

I wasn't referring to your post in mine.

DOH!!! Ok :p

which is also why i said "my .02".....i realize other ppl think differently about life/abortion/right and wrong/heaven/hell/satan/crack/cocaine/weed/cigarettes/church/repubs/dems all that.....again, i was just stating my reasoning why i can't accept KSig's reasoning concerning roe so i can be a good american thing. i think life begins at conception. and i'm okay with saying that i pray roe v. wade gets booted out the door. to some, they see it as a women's issue, i see it as a life issue. therefore, i'm pro-life.

i have a niece/nephew gone b/c of choice.......while i totally, 100% understand how the logic was formed behind the decision.....no logic in the world makes it right to me.....or to her.

Here's the thing though:

It's completely cool that you believe in conception as the start of a (legally protected) life. The problem is that this definition does not meet the high standards required in courts (at least under current review).

Rudey introduced a new, potentially problematic concept: the 'potential for life' . . . this also introduces elements that are completely beyond the court's necessary comprehension, things like stillbirth, prenatal disease and birth defect, and even 'DNR'-type quality of life arguments.

So the thing is, we have a hotbutton issue that no one can agree on. The reality is that even science can't tell us when a 'life' begins because we can't agree on a definition, and the best the prevailing religion can say is 'at conception' (which originally meant 'during sex' but now we know it takes hours . . . so when is it? can it be pinpointed?) . . .

In these sorts of cases, we must allow the freedom for individual interpretation. The bottom line, Monica, is that you're saving souls - and we can't legislate on that, at least not in good faith.

which is also why i said i know it's a non-issue.

i know i know i know i know i know. bah!

i'm jussayin that to me, IMO, IMHO, IMFHO, that i personally, me, myself, i cannot justify it as ok. i think it's wrong, i want it to be gone, but it never will. if nothing else, dammit, i can say what i wanna.......yes?

While I don't agree with you, I do agree with you. (Yeah that makes sense?)

Personally... no... I wouldn't get an abortion. It's a horrible process that affects the mother's health as much as it terminates a life. The only reason I would ever have one is if my life was in jeopardy... which apparently is something that Roe Vs Wade covers, but still would be in tact if it was overturned. (Or so some people have told me...)

But overturning R V W isn't going to make it go away. People will still figure some way (no matter how unhealthy) to terminate a pregnancy. Perhaps I watch too many movies or I'm way too cynical to believe that this will happen. But an example I use to explain myself (perhaps a bad one at that) is that drugs are illegal, underage drinking is illegal... but people still do it. (Don't lecture me on how drugs and "murder" are completely different... I said it was a bad example.) But banning something won't make it stop. So I guess it would be better for this to be regulated by the government in clean facilities rather than in someone's garage. In the latter, you run the risk of losing two lives. (Or at least it's higher than the former.)

I thought that was just a jewish thing?

OK, a serious post...

Abortion is a never ending debate, as you have all shown here.

On the one hand, anti-abortionists are not interested in forcing their beliefs on others (as most people would like to believe) but instead trying to protect the life growing inside the womb. Their theory is simply that the act of sex (if consentual) led to the pregnancy and now an innocent 3rd party is not being given a chance at life. This is hard for me to really agree with (me=pro-choice) but they are giving a point that you cannot argue with.

For the other side, it's a matter of choice, the choice to be free to control a woman's body regardless of it contents. The right to end a pregnancy is a liberty that they believe is based on the principles of our country (see KSig RC's comments). To impose a law against abortion is infringing on their rights to have an abortion.

I'm biased so I follow the pro-choice model because I believe a person is free, and once you place restrictions (any no matter how small or big) then you are hitting a slippery slope that adds religious problems to the law. You wouldn't want someone to make a law that violates your religious beliefs, and this same issue is found in Roe v. Wade.

As far as the protection of an unborn fetus goes, until they breathe air they aren't a citizen with protections yet. The question of viability (when is a fetus able to survive on its own) is very complex and impossible to draw a line until birth. While the thought of killing potential life is morally wrong and has its merits in the anti-abortion cause, we really can table that argument for now. This world has worse atrocities being committed everyday, and we kill people for lesser things. Plus, I just can't get myself to support the hardcore anti-abortionists when they think a rape victim doesn't derserve to abort the fruits of that crime.

Man, where is that euthanasia debate thread now :)


RUgreek

We like Jewish people too. :)

I promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but...

1) Viability of an unborn child is as low as 20 weeks now, and with continued scientific advances, will probably get lower. At what point do we decide to protect this 20 week child? I have friends in Atlanta whose son was born at 22 weeks, and survived. By the time he was 1 year old, his medical bills were over hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars. What if he had not been wanted? Does that mean that he could have just as easily been tissue in an incinerator? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of saving the one 22 week child, and aborting another, simply because of his or her convenience?

2) We have always legislated morality. We have laws concerning theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc - not one of these has any basis other than morality. And yes, theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc will always happen, whether or not they are legal. Does that make abortion any different - or is it just more popular due to its convenience?

3) Does anyone know a mother who has - or wanted or considered - an abortion? I do - and if you know anyone who was adopted, you probably do, too. Each of these people who I know was almost aborted (well, all but one, to be honest) is one of the nicest, sweetest people I know. If you were adopted yourself, if you love someone who was, aren't you secretly glad that his or her mother decided to be inconvenienced for nine months?

4) It is not easy to admit this, but I've changed my own views on abortion - the more I talked with those who have had one or considered one, the more I realized the devastation it causes. Maybe not at the time of the inconvenience, but the devastation does happen. It can play out in the promotion of anti-abortion campaigns; it can play out in pro-abortion campaigns, but it is and will always be a turning point in the life of the mother. Granted, I am lucky in that I never had to make such a decision, but I ache for those who did.

In summing up, like it or not, most of our laws are based on morality. Until a better argument is discovered, maybe convenience of one person or another should be reconsidered.


(changed a word!)

I agree Honeychile,

First, we're talking about legislating morality. Many of the laws we have today are right along with the 10 Commandments. Should we allow murder and stealing because it's along a religious guideline? I know that's a ridiculous claim, but I mean COME ON.

Second, I don't know one person who is HAPPY that they had an abortion. Everyone I know who has had one is very regretful and hurt by their own actions. One of my best friends can't even watch diaper commercials.

Third, the whole adoption point. My mom got pregnant with me when she was 16 and my father WANTED her to have an abortion, but she refused. I thank God every day that she didn't have some idiot pressuring her to choose an abortion. (I bet some of you now wish she had, but THAT is another story) I have had 2 very good friends who were adopted and I thank God that their parents made the same choice.

Finally, you can argue until you're blue in the face that life doesn't begin until birth, but the fact is that you can hear a heartbeat, see a tiny little face and fingers and toes WAY BEFORE 9 months rolls around.

Anyway, JMO, I don't expect anyone to jump on my bandwagon after reading a couple of my highly opinionated posts. You know what they say about opinions..........they're like butts, everyone has one and they usually stink. That's just me...........:D

I don't know, I have a hard time debating abortion rights being a guy but I see lots of great arguments for both sides. It just feels right to me to allow the choice for abortion to continue. I don't think killing is a good thing, but it is necessary under certain circumstances. That's just my feeling, and I know it's not a popular one.

See, the whole thing with helping a premature birth-child with life support and tax dollars seems unfair to me. I feel for the child, but like you said that's thousands of tax dollars being used. I'm not going to sit here and state that I know what's best for everyone, but if there was a choice between the infant's life and mother's, I would choose the latter. Hey, it's not always a happy ending when you make a difficult choice, but that's the world we live in.

Also I can't compare theft to abortion. Obviously it's easier to compare murder and abortion since that is what most anti-abortionists believe it is. Yes it is morally wrong to kill someone, but when I think of a fetus I think they are more related to a mother's property than an individual person. Until they are born, they are subject to a 9 month trial period where the mother is in control of their access to life. If she miscarriages, nobody complains because that's a "natural abortion."

I know no matter what there will be people on both sides of this issue, and rightfully so. I just believe the choice isn't about convenience, but really fairness. Is it fair to make a mother or family suffer for a mistake? If a fetus is determined to have terrible disabilities and low probability of life, or a life of pain, is it so bad to reject the birth and suffering? These are choices that you can yes or no to. And that's why the choice should be there to me.


RUgreek

I think this is a hard topic too.
Abortion may not the nicest thing to talk about but it has been going on long before this case and will go on under unsafe conditions if it were illegal.
There are some cases that I think it is understandable, if in the first three months. If I were raped, or in medical danger, or maybe PG b/c of insest...it would be something to think about.
What about drug addicts, child abusers....or someone who could afford a child...I'm not sure.
Not as birth control, there is no reason for peolpe to have multiple abortions when birth control is provided by the govt for FREE.

I should probably start a different thread for this, but I actually know a couple who are illiterate, on public assistance, and they have two children - by artificial insemination!!!! :eek:

You should share with us, some of "the many laws today that are right along with the 10 commandments."

Secondly, we have a law that allows murder, it's called The Death Penalty buddy.

But I have a feeling that you'd be the type of person that supports The Death Penatly, yet you'll argue about life and whatnot until the death. Life, what a concept...

The fact is that many of you up in here have unprotected sex and are not married or in a committed relationship...

There is only a "few" ways I can think of as to how a woman gets pregnant... Excluding artificial insemination and the immaculate conception...

So if you are going to judge somebody for aborting, then also judge the fact that they are having illicit fornication, too... As many folks that are up in the Dating and Relationships Forum lamenting of lost lovers... Hmmmm....

Then there is the fact of the ACTUAL numbers of selective abortions--NOT SPONTANEOUS ONES--BUT SELECTIVE ONES... The true in the live Roe V. Wade that everyone has their panties in a twist about...

~32 years ago, women were sticking hangers up their stuff ripping out their insides so that they would not a child. They had NO control of their bodies and who slept with them. The sexual revolution was at its infancy...

In the millenium, we have a patch, with Viagra/Levitra/etc. with full on cloning, artificial insemination and human embryonic stem cells. Because of HIV and AIDS, folks in the 1st world have TrojanMan to do some level of protection... Maybe the actual "physical need" for abortion is as relevant as the "legal need" for it... And that is where I think our argument should lie...

Because really, if you DON'T think this issue comes down to the money with congressional budgets and all for healthcare... Think again...

I know several who do not regret it at all.

I don't know how truthful someone would be with you on that, especially if they know your stance on it.

Why do that when you can pick and choose what's a sin and what's not? :rolleyes: Selectively moral, I guess.

ETA: The sheer number of people who are pro-life but also pro-death penalty never cease to amaze me. Isn't this quite a contradiction?

If murder is SO wrong, and so absolute, then why do we have the death penalty, DNR orders (do-not-rescusitate), legal defense to murder (self defense, etc), and varying degress of murder (first degree, manslaughter, etc- manslaughter carrying lesser sentences). Shouldn't it all be the same?

None of us know what the right answers are. None of us ever will until after we leave this planet and go wherever it is we'll go. Don't be so sure that your position is right.

Perhaps "many" was the wrong choice of words, but Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal are two that come to mind. I

You're right, I do support the death penalty in SOME cases. I would be 100% for it if the capital punishment system was completely error free, that no innocent person who ever got convicted of a capital crime was put to death, unfortunately it's not. Therefore I can not honestly say that I support it COMPLETELY.
What's even more interesting is that many people who are pro abortion are against the death penalthy, just like many who are pro life are for the death penalty. Strange.

I know I just mentioned this in the previous post, but..........
On the same token, it never ceases to amaze ME the number of people who are pro-choice and against the death penalty. Those of us on the other side (pro-life for the most part pro-cp) view that to be just as strange. I guess it really matters when you believe life starts. If you don't believe it starts till birth, then aborting it before then is not murder.

Again, this is simply a matter of opinion. AS KDDani so nicely pointed out, no one knows for sure so don't be so sure YOUR opinion is right. I don't know that my opinion is right, I believe I will find out one day, but it still is that, my opinion, which I am entitled to. As are you. I go along with what I've been taught and what I have come to believe.

I would hate for anyone to get into a huge fight over this because the issue will never be resolved. Especially not here on Greekchat.com. Roe v. Wade will probably never be overturned.

I will say this to all of those who are pro-choice and who think me and other conservative Christians are so close minded and evil people who spend all day reading our Bibles and are so naive to the real world. I have NEVER been in the situation where I have been pregnant under bad circumstances (i.e. not ready, raped, incest, etc). So honestly, it's a lot easier for me to sit here and say that it's wrong and I would never do it and it should be outlawed. If I ever was in that situation, I say now I wouldn't do it, but the truth is, I DON"T KNOW. I can't see how the trauma of having an abortion will make the trauma of the other circumstance any easier, but like I said, I've never been in that situation. Therefore, I have never judged anyone for having it done. As I've said before one of my best friends did it in college. I stilll love her very much and have never held that against her.

Anyway, I dont' think any less of those who believe different from me. I'm just stating what I believe to be true.

God I'm so hungover at work today . . . this will be a fun one, duder.





This is a completely specious argument, except for the first sentence. Thanks for your fallacious appeal to emotion, but the reality is that fetus viability has already been addressed as a sticky issue. There's no hypocrisy involved here, unless you apply some sort of morality to the issue. Speaking of . . .





NONE OF THESE ARE RELIGIOUSLY MORAL.

They are infringement upon the rights of others. If you can't see this, exit the thread immediately b/c you're going to force me to smash it down your throat until you understand how our nation and our laws originally were intended to work. Next you'll be tossing "in god we trust" at me, and I'll have a seizure.

Theft: infringing on a person's constitutional rights
Murder: infringing on a person's personal rights
adultery: not illegal, that i know of - feel free to enlighten me as to where you get arrested for having sex
perjury: you are infringing on a person's right to a fair trial

There is no moral aspect involved, lovely.

These are again fallacious arguments. Everyone I know who has had an abortion has not regretted the decision. Also, adoption and abortion are not in some sort of diametric opposition, although it is an alternative - you're burning the candle pretty low with this argument.

Also, how do you know they were 'almost aborted'? You're making this up, kiddo.

Fantastic, but irrelevant. Sure, it's a tough decision - but until you can provide me a constitutionally sound reason to remove the right to make this tough decision, it doesn't matter.

If it's a shitty decision, hey that's tough, but we cannot remove the option to make it. You might think it's ruining someone's life, but LET THEM RUIN THEIR LIFE, it is ultimately their option.

Very few of our laws are based on morality, and the ideal is that NONE of our laws would be based on morality. Drug laws aside, I think you're just blowing smoke. Your arguments aren't based in either logic or actual constitutional law, but instead on your personal beliefs and experiences.

Guess what? These are exactly the kinds of things we need to AVOID when discussing law. Fair enough?

she's going to force you to smash it down her throat until she understands how our nation and laws originally were intended to work? PUHLEAZE!!! I suposse YOU know the original intent of the laws since YOU WERE THERE AND ALL. :rolleyes:
No one is being an ass to you, so kindly return the favor.