Pro-Life?

Originally posted by whodey
I don't know how things are in Africa or Europe but for those in the US the issues that seem to motivate people the most are social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. For example, we have the Christian right whose sole reason for existing are such issues. If it were not for such issues I dare say they would never have come into existence. If you don ...[text shortened]... voting against the party in office at times of economic hardships no matter the facts at hand.

The issues are do real however. The people who they do think that they have to fight for their rights are real. The conditions under which their human rights are in danger, they are specific and real. The conditions under which the citizens are called to live are specific and real, and the citizens must find ways to gain power and become able to change he siuations for their benefit otherwise they cannot prosper. It is all real and it happens here and now. It is not an effect of a cheap political trick.

So the decent citizens they realise that they do have real problems regarding several issues whilst they face them within the society; therefore they congregate in order to overcome them. These very citizens, with their quite individual views, they are oblidged to support the party which in their opinion stands better for their rights and their prosperity. And here comes the religionism too, which in our case forced the Pro-life citizens to succeed the denial of the birth control products to Africa. But this act means that the African children will suffer a slow death. Or not?

And here you came claiming that "the political stance on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc, is nothing more that ways to distinguish the two parties."...

This is wrong my friend. For the Pro-life people the denial of the BC products is just a poke but for the African children is dead sure death.

Originally posted by black beetle
The issue has to do solely with the right of the woman to be pregnant or not. If the woman wishes not to raise a child for health or social reasons, then she has the right to have an abortion. Pregnancy means not that the woman must anyway be forced to give birth.

An early abortion kills nobody because a fetus is not recognized as a person.

I forgot to mention that the woman must also have the right to have an abortion for personal reasons too.

Originally posted by black beetle
Abortion is abortion and not a murder. Probably the actual meaning of the words is Greek to a religionist and to everybody that he is unable to think rationally.

The issue at this thread is the fact that the Vatican and the Pro-life people pressed for the denial of birth control products to Africa; in my opinion this act causes deaths because the parents of the children are unable to feed and treat them properly. What is your opinion?

I think that the denial of birth control to Africa is wrong.

Abortion is murder. What does abort mean? To stop to discontinue. What are you stopping? A life. Murder.

Originally posted by black beetle
I forgot to mention that the woman must also have the right to have an abortion for personal reasons too.

A fetus is recognized as a person by a lot of people.

Originally posted by chappy1
A fetus is recognized as a person by a lot of people.

Of course, a lot of people have too this opinion that you expressed. BTW these very people they recognise the Pope as an authority (or the Sharya as the ultimate canon), and they consider that a pregnant woman is an object which it has not the right to decide what she will do in her life. Such a relisionist and unethical attitude comes ...naturally after implying the "fact" that the women are evil.

Originally posted by chappy1
A fetus is recognized as a person by a lot of people.

Yeah? So?
Nobody's forcing them to have an abortion, are they?

I'm sure a lot of people recognise sperm as people too... doesn't mean they're right.

Originally posted by chappy1
I think that the denial of birth control to Africa is wrong.

Abortion is murder. What does abort mean? To stop to discontinue. What are you stopping? A life. Murder.

chappy1 pal, you think that the denial of birth control to Africa is wrong;

I think that the denial of birth control to Africa is actually a death sentence for the African children. I cannot claim that it is "wrong". I claim that it is a cold blooded mass infanticide, driven by religionists and executed by religionists in the name of the "Lord".

Originally posted by black beetle
The issues are do real however. The people who they do think that they have to fight for their rights are real. The conditions under which their human rights are in danger, they are specific and real. The conditions under which the citizens are called to live are specific and real, and the citizens must find ways to gain power and become able to change ...[text shortened]... the denial of the BC products is just a poke but for the African children is dead sure death.

You are not understanding me in the least. I NEVER said that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not real and have real implications for people, rather, I am merely saying that politicians have little interest in them. For the politician, what is "real" is, who is going to finance my next political campaign? How much pork can I stick in the next legislation that I vote on? What things can I do to get reelected? So in the greater scheme of things, what concern do such politicians have for the unborn or for gay rights? Really, the only concern is espousing support for or against such positions all for the sake of getting people to vote for them. In other words, taking a position on such matters is viewed more as a tool for them to get elected than it is a goal of theirs to tackle. In this sense it is indeed a cheap political trick.

Originally posted by black beetle

This is wrong my friend. For the Pro-life people the denial of the BC products is just a poke but for the African children is dead sure death.[/b]

Here is an idea. Instead of being obsessed with the reproductive lives of Africans so that we can "save them" simply because there will be less of them to suffer in the end, why are we not more concerned about improving their lives so that they are afforded to have more children if they so desire?

I don't think you have the third world mentality my friend. Those in the third world need children to survive. They need them to work the land and care for them in later years etc. Unfortunately, however, many of these children die for various reasons, due to their poverty status. It then behooves them to have many children to increase their chances of survival into adulthood. It would then seem logical that to stop them from reproducing in such high numbers we should then improve the quality of their lives so that they will have children for the sake of wanting children rather than them feeling it is needed for survival.

Originally posted by whodey
You are not understanding me in the least. I NEVER said that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not real and have real implications for people, rather, I am merely saying that politicians have little interest in them. For the politician, what is "real" is, who is going to finance my next political campaign? How much pork can I stick in the next l ...[text shortened]... ed than it is a goal of theirs to tackle. In this sense it is indeed a cheap political trick.

And that is all as it should be is it not? That is democracy. Surely that means that any decisions the politicians take are what the politician thinks is desired by the majority of his constituents or the wealthier of his campaign financiers. So it comes back to blaming the pro-life man in the street who supports the idea of stopping birth control products from going to Africa. I can think of any business interests that would gain from such a move.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is an idea. Instead of being obsessed with the reproductive lives of Africans so that we can "save them" simply because there will be less of them to suffer in the end, why are we not more concerned about improving their lives so that they are afforded to have more children if they so desire?

But they don't desire more children. Nobody was ever forcing birth control products down their throats, or slipping it in the drinking water. They are being denied the the products that will enable them to have less children.

I don't think you have the third world mentality my friend. Those in the third world need children to survive. They need them to work the land and care for them in later years etc.
I have lived in the 'third world' all my life except for the last 5 years when I have been in South Africa. A significant proportion of Africas population does not 'work the land' but lives in urban areas. The whole 'care for them in later years' is not working out too well either. A large proportion of the AIDS related deaths have been the younger generations.

Unfortunately, however, many of these children die for various reasons, due to their poverty status. It then behooves them to have many children to increase their chances of survival into adulthood. It would then seem logical that to stop them from reproducing in such high numbers we should then improve the quality of their lives so that they will have children for the sake of wanting children rather than them feeling it is needed for survival.
As I pointed out above, the people in question already want to have less children but they are being denied the means to do so.

Originally posted by whodey
You are not understanding me in the least. I NEVER said that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not real and have real implications for people, rather, I am merely saying that politicians have little interest in them. For the politician, what is "real" is, who is going to finance my next political campaign? How much pork can I stick in the next l ...[text shortened]... ed than it is a goal of theirs to tackle. In this sense it is indeed a cheap political trick.

I understand you allright. I just have a different opinion than you.

I agree that many politicians stink, but the citizen is still responsible for his own actions and decisions regardless the level of the morality of each politician and of the parties and of the political system as a whole. OK, surely some politicians have little interest in issues like the ones we are discussing. So what? Should the Pro-life citizens act the way they acted? Was or was not the party of the Republicans and the Vatican, along with the religionism, the factors that they urged the Pro-life citizens to press against the birth control products?
Or you suggest that all this happend due to the "fact" that the indifferent to this issue politicians of the Democrats and of the Republicans are using just another "cheap political trick"?

We disagree, because you whodey pal you estimate that it all starts from the politicians as a "cheap trick", whilst I think that it all starts due to the fact that these Pro-life citizens are religionists and nobody cares. And the worse is that a whole political party with million voters along with a whole community of the so called "truly born by God" Christians, they all give not a fig for Love and they respect not the Life.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is an idea. Instead of being obsessed with the reproductive lives of Africans so that we can "save them" simply because there will be less of them to suffer in the end, why are we not more concerned about improving their lives so that they are afforded to have more children if they so desire?

I don't think you have the third world mentality my friend ...[text shortened]... children for the sake of wanting children rather than them feeling it is needed for survival.

Nope whodey, your idea and your proposal are both of them false.
The above mentioned reply of our friend twhitehead covers me in full.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Your bible is not always true, you know that do you?
You cannot ever use the bible as any proof whatsoever. It is written of people from another time, from another culture, from another agenda...

So was the constitution . . .

Originally posted by twhitehead
But they don't desire more children. Nobody was ever forcing birth control products down their throats, or slipping it in the drinking water. They are being denied the the products that will enable them to have less children.

[b]I don't think you have the third world mentality my friend. Those in the third world need children to survive. They need th uestion already want to have less children but they are being denied the means to do so.

No matter your opinion or my opinion, the fact of the matter is that those who practice birth control on average are those who are "well to do". Therefore, to change this situation it would behoove people to improve their standard of living than it would to drop condoms from a plane as they stand starving the cities and country side of Africa. What is needed is education to help them earn a higher wage which should bring a higher level of economic existence and an ability to govern their own lives better. It simply amazes me that the pro-abortionist crowd can't see this simple fact. The focus should be helping and assisting those in poverty to get out of poverty and not how many children they should be having.