2 edits
For those and others who believe that Libertarians cannot be pro-Life:
Libertarians for Life.
http://www.l4l.org/
A secular case against abortion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html
For those and others who think Liberals cannot be pro-Life:
The Liberal Case Against Abortion.
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/pub-thelib-04.html
Originally posted by wibThis link deals with the question you raise:
Ok here's a scenario that everyone has a different answer for. Here's the dilemma...
Bad guy walks into a store. Pulls a gun on a clerk. He's gonna rob the place.
The clerk is a woman. She screams, scares the bad guy, he pulls the trigger and shoots her in the head. Bam! She hits the floor and she's dead.
She was also 2 weeks pregnant.
...[text shortened]... matter how many people I ask that of, I get lots of different answers and never any proof.
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy do you bother with such nonsense in every thread about abortion? Yes, small numbers of people who somewhat fit in the vaque categories you mention can be found who support the State having the power to send women to prison for having an abortion; so what? Can't you do your own thinking? Answer me why and if it would make a difference to you if a woman had an abortion as a backup method of birth control or whether she had one because she was made pregnant by a violent rape or just felt like having an abortion because the Joneses down the street just had one?
For those and others who believe that Libertarians cannot be pro-Life:
Libertarians for Life.
http://www.l4l.org/
A secular case against abortion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html
...[text shortened]... on.
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/pub-thelib-04.html
1 edit
So, please don't accept the blatant lie that only "religious nutcases and religious bigots" can be pro-Life.
It is a lie we can detect over and over again in the abortion debate. It is a deceiving technique deliberately used by advocates of abortion to mislead and manipulate the people [Implicite message, in fact a threat: "If you are Pro-Life, you must be one of those irrational religious bigots"].
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeno-one is anti-life but the fundamental problem here is basing all
For those and others who believe that Libertarians cannot be pro-Life:
Libertarians for Life.
http://www.l4l.org/
the judgements on the basis of the totally unprovable assumption
that there is a god and furthermore he/she/it speaks to us and
tells us pro-choice is wrong. Why not a non-religious organization
that says its wrong because just people say its wrong? Why does
"God" have to brought into it each and every time this subject is
brought up? I am more or less neutral on the subject but I
recognize a woman who is raped by, say, a robber with AIDS,
should not be forced to carry such a fetus to term. So in that regard
I am pro-choice. I personally know of a local case of a 12 year old
made pregnant by rape and the child was forced to carry it to term so
now she is out of high school, doomed to take care of a bastard for
the next 20 years or so, you think thats ok? We tried to intervene,
my son actually has a masters in social welfare and works for the
county in that capacity and he presented the issue to no avail.
What the hell is wrong with society when something like this happens
and a little girl is forever spoiled? What is going on in your perverted
minds that would sanction something like this? You say life is
valuable, so you are ok sacrificing the future of a child while bringing
into the world an infant which was concieved through rape? You
types always froth off at the mouth about preventing abortion and
such but when the baby is born you withdraw all your so-called
concerns and drop each birth as if that is the end of the story.
You seem to convieniently forget about what has to happen for the
next twenty years or so and about the more fundamental issue that
there are 6 billion people on the planet right now and billions more
on the way. What do pro-life people have to say about that?
What if a hundred years from now we find ourselves with 15 billion
people on the planet and then some super drought happens and
the population dies back to a few million or so, would you think
thats ok, that in the 20th and 21st century BY GOD we did our
job stopping those accursed pro-choicers.....
Originally posted by ivanhoeI didn't say all people who want the State to throw women in prison for having an abortion were "religious nutcases and religious bigots" just you and most of 'em are.
So, please don't accept the blatant lie that only "religious nutcases and religious bigots" can be pro-Life.
It is a lie we can detect over and over again in the abortion debate. It is a deceiving technique deliberately used by advocates of abortion to mislead and manipulate the people [Implicite message, in fact a threat: "If you are Pro-Life, you must be one of those irrational religious bigots"].
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat you propose is making killing the unborn morally acceptable for demografic reasons. I'm afraid this is the Eugenics movement from the last centuries' twenties, thirties and forties looking around the corner again.
no-one is anti-life but the fundamental problem here is basing all
the judgements on the basis of the totally unprovable assumption
that there is a god and furthermore he/she/it speaks to us and
tells us pro-choice is wrong. Why not a n ...[text shortened]... y BY GOD we did our
job stopping those accursed pro-choicers.....
People keep coming up with the same ideas over and over again.
Where is that thread that deals with the question whether people are able or willing to learn from history ?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWHY DON'T YOU STOP SPOUTING YOUR BLATANT LIES !
I didn't say all people who want the State to throw women in prison for having an abortion were "religious nutcases and religious bigots" just you and most of 'em are.
I NEVER stated women who performed abortion should go to prison, NEVER. This is once again one of your blatant lies, one of your many ridiculous assumptions you project on me.
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse: "Why not a non-religious organization that says its wrong because just people say its wrong?
no-one is anti-life but the fundamental problem here is basing all
the judgements on the basis of the totally unprovable assumption
that there is a god and furthermore he/she/it speaks to us and
tells us pro-choice is wrong. Why not a non-religious organization
that says its wrong because just people say its wrong? Why does
"God" have to brought into ...[text shortened]... at in the 20th and 21st century BY GOD we did our
job stopping those accursed pro-choicers.....
Please check out the posts where I gave the links to NON-religious sites, that are PRO-LIFE.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlthough I agree with your point, I dont think it was needed here. No one here, (for as far as I've read) has said that you need to be a "religious nutcase or religious bigot" to be pro-life. By the same token, I dont think anyone has to be a "god-less, ultra-liberal, secularist" to be pro-choice.
So, please don't accept the blatant lie that only "religious nutcases and religious bigots" can be pro-Life.
It is a lie we can detect over and over again in the abortion debate. It is a deceiving technique deliberately used by advocates of abortion to mislead and manipulate the people [Implicite message, in fact a threat: "If you are Pro-Life, you must be one of those irrational religious bigots"].
In many cases, (as I'm beginning to think it is with this one) it is simply a case of ideaologies colliding. It is not that we dont want to understand each other's thoughts, it is that we cannot comprehend how things could be any different. it doesn't make sense to us any other way, even though we (at least I) try to see the other person's viewpoint. There are those in the middle that aren't exactly sure where they stand (which is not a bad thing in itself either), and then there are those on both ends of the issue that think they are sincerely correct in their view. In my opinion, no1marauder and I fall into this category on this particular issue. Though I may not be able to fully appreciate and/or comprehend why anyone would whole-heartedly agree with the pro-choice stance, I can understand this much.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou stated, in this very thread:
WHY DON'T YOU STOP SPOUTING YOUR BLATANT LIES !
I NEVER stated women who performed abortion should go to prison, NEVER. This is once again one of your blatant lies, one of your many ridiculous assumptions you project on me.
I'm waiting for the day that Roe versus Wade will be overthrown by the Supreme Court.
Roe v. Wade invalidated a Texas criminal statute that made it a crime to have or perform an abortion. The penalty was 5 years in prison. The Supreme Court declared all such criminal laws an unconstitutional infringement on a woman's privacy rights.
If you got your wish and Roe v. Wade was overthrown, States would be allowed to pass criminal laws against abortion. Many definitely would. They would be allowed to make laws providing for prison terms for woman having abortions; most would. And the final result would be that women would go to prison for having abortions if you get your wish as I'm sure there are many prosecutors out there drooling for a chance to get on FoxNews as the first "tough on abortion" crimefighter.
So you either don't understand the ramifications of your position or are being dishonest. Which is it, Ivanhoe? In no case am I lying, blatantly or otherwise.
Originally posted by no1marauderwell said and Roe v Wade is in mortal danger thats for sure.
You stated, in this very thread:
I'm waiting for the day that Roe versus Wade will be overthrown by the Supreme Court.
Roe v. Wade invalidated a Texas criminal statute that made it a crime to have or perform an abortion. The penalty was 5 years in prison. The Supreme Court declared all such criminal laws an unconstitutiona ...[text shortened]... ion or are being dishonest. Which is it, Ivanhoe? In no case am I lying, blatantly or otherwise.
What we need is a constitutional amendment so we won't have to
worry about some bible belt thumper overturning it.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell thats one good thing, people actually using their own minds
Sonhouse: "Why not a non-religious organization that says its wrong because just people say its wrong?
Please check out the posts where I gave the links to NON-religious sites, that are PRO-LIFE.
to come to a conclusion, ritht or wrong. What about my next
concern? Overpopulation. Seems to me if a few billion people die
in a drought that would show the prolifers something fundamental
is wrong with their philosophy. The planet can only support so many
people and if we go over that, for now unkonwn, limit then millions
of people are bound to die. How does that fit into a right to life
issue? I think they would say, tough luck. What about the rape
issues I brought up? What about a fetus threatening the mothers
life? let the mother die, just SAVE THAT BABY?