Atomic City Talk

You are proving that you have the attention span of a broken pencil.

If you go back to yesterday's comments on page 6, you'll see that I've already commented on that. I pretty much said that it's not right for those to stray outside of their contained areas.

I chose to sweep through and avoid the area thereafter.

Pay attention and quit repeating yourself. Good grief.

Absolutely. I don’t believe I’ve personally accused anyone of anything, but feel free to show me if I have.

This all boils down to one side valuing the life of babies more than the freedom of a specific choice. Notice that I am not saying that pro-choice supporters don’t value life; I’m saying that they place a higher value on having the choice to abort. The problem is that no pro-choice person has expressed openness to the concerns of those who oppose abortion; rather they insist in making the issue about morals and religion, which most pro-lifers have attempted to avoid.
Let me lay it out:

Arguments for abortion – or the right to choose abortion

1. It must be legal because of cases where a woman’s health is endangered

Note that we now have laws FOR it because in SOME cases it COULD result in health problems.

Those who assert this argument refuse to acknowledge that most abortions are not performed to protect the mother. And while I don’t think a pro-lifer has stated that a woman should jeopardize her own life here, the pro-choice folks project that somehow pro-lifers do.

2. It must be legal in cases of rape or incest.

Again, no pro-lifer has argued here that a woman should be refused an abortion in these rare cases – and again, no pro-choicer has acknowledged that most abortions are not performed for this reason.

So where does that leave them? When arguments #1 & #2 fail, pro-choicers resort to these arguments:

3. It must be legal because it is a personal issue between a woman and her God
4. It must be legal because a woman has the right to choose what she can and can’t do with her own body.

Askwhy and others have pointed out the numerous contradictions in both of these arguments with the primary one being that it is specific to this one cause and that, in and of itself, renders the argument faulty. If these statements were absolute, then all mores are out the window.

Which is why I ask the question:

For much of history, incest (please look up the definition if you believe
it to only include children) has not been a social violation. Science rendered it detrimental to society because of the realized health concerns. Now we have laws AGAINST it because in SOME cases it COULD result in health problems. But what about people who want the freedom to love whomever they choose and are willing not to procreate? Why should their freedoms be limited more so than women who want abortions or homosexuals who want equal rights? Should government pick and choose what behavior is deemed sick or abhorent? Is the idea of two cousins kissing really that more depraved than killing unborn children?

For the record, I don’t think incest should legalized anymore than I think abortion should be legal in all cases.

This brings us back around to the first two arguments. Pro-choicers refuse to acknowledge that MOST ABORTIONS ARE NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY AND DO NOT INVOLVE RAPE OR INCEST. If you are a pro-choice advocate who acknowledges these facts, would you support a law that bans abortions except under these two circumstances? Be honest.

Just to set the record straight I think that you are using your terms loosely. No one is talking about babies here, except indirectly.

I'm not sure it's projection when so many anti-choice bills come with no provision for the woman's health.

Resort? Asserting a fundamental right of privacy and liberty are hardly last resorts.

This did not make sense to me.

Several states allow for this.

Why do you believe that is is the case?

Privacy, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not seem reasonable to me that our government should be making these kinds of decisions for people.

It seems obvious to me that you are an emotional thinker. However, things that seem right (or wrong) to you should not (IMHO) be generalized into law.

There was a story recently about a Republican "right-to-lifer" Congressman (I believe) that when his girl friend got pregnant, insisted that she get an abortion. If the law were based on his emotional thinking, it would have made an 180 degree turn right then. Fortunately, in this country, laws are built on fundamental, often contradictory yet changing, principles. It is the successful weighing of these factors that give our legal system a modicum of stability.

I find that when I have an emotional reaction against a law, that is a signal for me to try to understand the reasoning why it is as it is.

I'm glad you are not a OB-GYN or a judge since medicine and law dispute your opinion when they said, "‘substantial medical authority’ supports the medical necessity of a health exception".

We'll have to agree to disagree about how loosely I'm using my words. Yes, we are talking about babies - you may choose not to believe that an unborn fetus is not a baby, but it doesn't make it true.
You already made your feelings, or lack thereof, about them very apparent in your repugnant commentary about partial birth abortions (in another thread).

Yet our government does.

Unsolicited psychoanalysis - do you landscape for free as well? 'Cause I've got some fertilizer that also needs to be shoveled.

Are you talking about the one where I quoted the proposed Senate bill?

You have placed yourself on the slippery slope of where sacred human live begins and there is no scientific reality there. A fetus comes from two living cells, so conception is not the beginning of human life. If no conceived cell is to be lost, take it up with God who dispenses with 90% of them. Since these cells are a combination of sperm and egg, should we not save all of them too? Since every cell will soon be able to be the source of a complete embryo, is cell death not a sacred violation?

There is a bill (somewhere) to grant personhood to fetuses. That will give a huge paycheck to our lawyers. Not only the wrongful death suits that you support, but what about the unlawful imprisonment of those fertility clinic residents on liquid nitrogen. So many habeas corpus claims. Will "parents" be able to get tax deductions for all those dependents? Won't the state have to pay for those "people's" legal representation? I suppose medical insurance will have to cover them. I can just see the poor census taker trying to count them. I hope it won't throw off the congressional districts too much when apportionment time comes. What if the fertility clinic is not zoned as a multi-family residence? Some are old enough to attend school. I hope they have their vaccinations.

The silliness goes on and on.

Perhaps for sheep. I personally prefer to make my own medical decisions.

Now don't throw a fit over that apparently accurate observation. There is some substance there that you too easily ignore.

I personally do not think we should kill anyone who is born unless it is a very special situation (per the recent Supreme Court decision).

There's really no easy way to say this, but I'll try to be gentle. You just don't do it for me anymore. I...I...I don't think you ever did, at least not as much as you thought.

PI and BS look like they could use your special attention, though.

Trina you are incorrect. A true pro-lifer does not believe in capital punishment, abortion, mercy killing or any means that takes a human life. Only God has the right to take a human life. If you do not believe that way you are not pro-life but rather anti abortion. A pro-choice can believe in whatever they choose that is why they are pro choice. This conversation is futile. Pro-choice and pro-life or anti-abortion, we are what we believe in and we can argue until the cows come home and we are not going to change. As I said, I did not want ot open up pandora's box.

I am going to get on a soap box here and probably irritate a lot of people but I am going to say what I have to say and then be over it. Women, blacks and all minorities enjoy a better life style because of the children of the 60's. We changed this world. We protested and made change happen and the world would never be the same again. Some was for the good, some not. The young generation of today is a gutless generation. If it doesn't affect them well who cares. They enjoy their lifestyle because of us. If this Iraq war was in the 60's there would be protest everywhere but because there is no draft and it doesn't affect them, who cares. So, when you younger women see women in their 50's and older thank them for the way of life you now have, for the equality you can enjoy, for the salaries you can make. You don't have to be a teacher or nurse. There is a whole world open to you. You might not agree with all we did but we did it with a purpose. Maybe you need a purpose and get off your ME behinds. Become a part of change. Do something to make the world a better place. We sure as hell did. This is not directed at any one person but an entire apathetic generation.