The Lame will walk

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> We can then assume that we can count on your support of banning Partial Birth Abortions. The ratio's are about the same. Rape, incest and threat to the mothers life in the third trimester. Say 1%

My position would be easier to understand and accept if you know where my opinions come from.<br /><br />Personally, I am against abortions, and I am not hypocritical about it. I talk the talk, but I also walk the walk. I have been faced with the choice, I made my choice, and I am now saddled with the financial burden that children bring, and have unfortunately cursed my child to eventually come to a grim realization about the type of person her mother truly is. But I've also been blessed with an absolutely beautiful little girl that has her dad wrapped around her little finger.<br /><br />Even though I am against abortion, and my actions reflect it, more important and prevalent is my belief that I must respect other people, their choices, and their beliefs, even if they are different than my own. I believe each and every person has the right to choose their own beliefs and act accordingly, provided those actions do not interfere with the rights of another, and that those actions lie within the guidelines set forth by society. I realize that some people may not share my views on abortion, religion, or homosexuality. I cannot, in good concience, allow MY beliefs to dictate somebody else's actions, and I defer to society to set forth guidelines.<br /><br />As such, I defer the topic of abortion to the masses. And the masses have decided through Roe vs. Wade that a woman has the right to make decisions concerning her own body, and that abortion is legal. By doing so, they have also proclaimed de facto that life does not begin until birth.<br /><br />The way I see it, you have to have clear, concise guidelines. There are two possibilities I can see for the beginning of life. Either it is at conception, or at birth. The religious or conservative arguement is that life begins at conception, and thus that abortion is murder. If that is the case, then I don't understand the controversy surrounding partial-birth abortion. Yes, it's more graphic and ugly, by why does that make it "more wrong" than a first-trimester abortion?

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

Hey Wilkin the masses at one time felt slavery was OK...........Maybe it wasnt even the masses but the most vocal. Think about it if the masses/ most vocal choose to exterminate ...say....the muslems in our country would they be right cuz more people want it then dont. I say no. You say your against Abortion but by saying its ok to do it if its your belief that its fine says your only against you doing it. Hmmmmmmmmm. I think if you search your heart and see why the reason you are against it should be the very reason it should be outlawed your whole veiw might change. Oh and coming from a Christian veiw Abortion is Abortion at any stage as far as Im concerned, it just should be obvious to a Doctor or parent that a 6,7,8 or 9 month old is a viable living human being so the excuse of its not a person until birth is ridiculas.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

So at six months, it should be obvious that it is a viable human being. What about before six months. How about WAY before six months, when the fertilized egg first splits. Is two cells considered a viable human being? How about four cells? Sure, if I ask you right now, you know it would be an obvious trap, and you would say that two cells contitutes a viable human being. But honestly, even you have to admit that many people, even those in the anti-abortion crowd, would not define four cells as a viable human being if they did not know it was an obvious trap to trick them into contradiction.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

nope first trimester fetus is not a viable human being but it is human life.........point I tryed to make is why so many people freak out on partial-birth much more than the other types of abortion. Those babies could live without mom much of the time. No doubt its murder.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

However, I don't think you can use the possibility of survival as a basis for viable human life.<br /><br />The topic of abortion is complex.<br /><br />We can all agree that murder is wrong. Unalienable rights, Life, Liberty, obviously murder violates those rights. But in order to possess those rights, a person must be ALIVE, they must EXIST. As you have alluded, they must be a viable human being. THAT is where the complexity and gray area occurs.<br /><br />Some may argue that a small collection of cells is not a viable human being. It does not have fingers or toes. It certainly doesn’t resemble a human being, it doesn’t even have a heartbeat or brainwaves. In the moments after fertilization, you have one cell, then two, then four. Does four cells constitute a viable human being?<br /><br />This brings rise to the question "When does life begin?" Where does the transition from embryo to viable human life occur? This NEEDS to be a clear distinction, because it is at this point that a person is endowed with those unalienable rights. It is at THIS point that murder is possible.<br /><br />I cannot draw that distinction, that fine line. I cannot make the claim that life starts at one point, and not before. I don't think it can be arbitrary, I don't think you can draw it at one month, the first trimester, or at 6,7,8,or 9 months. This is not a question I can answer, and thus THIS is the question I defer to the masses. When does life begin?<br /><br />The way I see it, it can only be one of two possibilities: either at fertilization, or at birth. As I have indicated, the argument of life beginning at fertilization is not and easy argument to make. Two cells hardly constitute a viable human life. If life begins at fertilization, than any woman that has a miscarriage must be charged with child-endangerment and murder. A woman no longer has the right to her own body, because her actions affect another viable human life. We cannot require by law a woman to eat properly, exercise, take vitamins, or even to stop drinking alcohol. Yet these actions or lack thereof can negatively affect another viable human life, if that life begins at fertilization.<br /><br />Like I said, I can't make that distinction of when life begins. And thus, I have to defer to society to decide. And because of that, I have to accept the decision, and that decision was that life begins at birth.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

Qoute "The way I see it, it can only be one of two possibilities: either at fertilization, or at birth."<br /><br />Come one, what your saying because we are not sure if life starts at the ezact moment of fertilization it is perfectly fine for abortion to be legal at all levels of pregnancy.<br /><br />Qoute "If life begins at fertilization, than any woman that has a miscarriage must be charged with child-endangerment and murder. "<br />This so wrong I will not even comment on it.<br /><br /><br />Qoute "Like I said, I can't make that distinction of when life begins. And thus, I have to defer to society to decide. And because of that, I have to accept the decision, and that decision was that life begins at birth."<br /><br />There were prolly many many people with this aditude in nazi germany look how that turned out.This is exzactly why this subject is so importiant, people say it(Fetal stem cell research) wont raise the numbers of abortions or make abortion farms, but the more technology advances and the need for aborted fetus's, the more chances there is for baby farms and such. People who cant make up their minds as to what is right from wrong so they defer to public opinion are just playing right into this situation. Maybe not now or tomarrow but possably in 10 yrs, 20 yrs, or 50yrs.

 

[phatmanmike]

Re: The Lame will walk

I know this is harsh, but do we really need to prevent all deaths and injuries. Think of the population/energy/food problems

I'm personally against abortion, but I'm far more against a bunch of men in high places telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

That phrase, "a bunch of men in high places," is a bit of a rheotorical dung. This is a republic, and the laws are a reflection of the will of the people, not just a handful of domineering men

the first two i agree with whole hearted, the third must be a pipe dream, wake up!!!!!

 

[gsbodine]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by Bearcat Powered:<br /> Norse, you are correct, it is my opinion. Or perhaps I should say conviction. Very strongly held opinion, anyway.<br />

I understand, BP, and appreciate that sentiment. There is some we disagree about, and some we don't. I was mostly trying to interject facts into a discussion that concerns me as much as it does you. On another note, the quote you attributed to me actually belonged to Wilkin250R, who also agrees and disagrees with some of my concerns (but objects of my prepositions remain in the objective case ): <br /><br />

<br />Norse say:

The direction and focus of research should be decided by knowledgable people, the doctors and scientists involved in the research, not by you and I.

snip...

 

[aspeck]

Re: The Lame will walk

Mike, pay close attention to what Wilkin is saying - he is more on your side than you think. It is EITHER at fertilization, or at birth. He is saying that those that want it somewhere in between are hypocrites, and actually supporting you. There are not many that are in favor of full term abortions ...

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

Yes, the quote concerning the focus and direction of research does indeed belong to me.<br /><br />Let me clarify my position. In order for abortion to be "murder" the fetus MUST be alive (i.e. life has begun) and that fetus is now a human being with the same unalienable rights (particularly that of Life) that you and I share. The fetus is recognized by law as a separate distinct human being.<br /><br />In order for that to happen, there MUST be some defining point at which life begins, and that life is now recognized as a separate human being. The controversy is: where is that point? When the heart starts beating? When the brain develops?<br /><br />My girfriend is a strange person, and I'll never understand her thinking. It is OK to kill a snake, but not OK to kill a squirrel. Why? Because squirrels are "cute". Many people want to arbitrarily draw that line when the fetus resembles a human being. Well, thats a little ambiguous, isn't it? Not to mention hypocritical. The fetus is capable of reacting to stimulus and pain long before the little fingers and toes are fully developed. Where do we draw that line between tissue, and recognized human life?<br /><br />I my opinion, you have only two choices at which you can define as life begins. Either at fertilization, or at birth. To try to claim that the fetus becomes a human being "somewhere in the middle" is absurd. Anybody that claims to be against partial-birth abortions, but OK with first-trimester abortions is a hypocrite.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

Wilkin my wife is the very same way....wil slam on the brakes and endanger everyone in the car to save a squirrel but whoa if she see's a snake its Kill it! kill it! kill it! Im sorry if I misunderstood you and surly ment no offence to anybody.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

No offense taken. I brought up the example as an analogy to the hypocrisy of abortion. Many people are wholly and vehemently opposed to partial-birth abortions, but they don't express that same opposition to first-trimester abortions. Granted, partial-birth abortions are much more graphic and disturbing, just as the snake is indeed uglier than the squirrel, but isn't the end result the same? You take a small unborn human life and end it. I don't really see how one is more wrong than the other.

 

[JB]

Re: The Lame will walk

Snakes are far prettier than squirrels. <br /><br />What's more, they have a beneficial mission in nature to control pests like squirrels and other rodents.<br /><br />It is criminal to kill snakes just because of religious myths about "serpents".<br /><br />Tell me some benefit that squirrels offer.<br /><br />Now, that said, let's talk about the differences between beliefs and facts and our civilized obligation to respect the beliefs of others, even the ones we disagree with.

 

[oddjob]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by JB:<br /><br />Tell me some benefit that squirrels offer.<br /><br /><br />For starters, Fried w/ red-eye gravy 'n' buttermilk biscuts for one.

 

[JB]

Re: The Lame will walk

Touche', OJ. <br /><br />I do believe that in Brunswick stew is better, but that is just a matter of taste.

 

[kd6nem]

Re: The Lame will walk

Wilkin, my apologies both to you and Norse for for the misquote. Wilkin, I must say this, you are working hard to be consistent. I appreciate this very much. Keep thinking on this, you've thought deeper than most dozen others out on the streets combined. You might just find yourself connecting that last dot the same way I have. Or perhaps not. Either way you have brought much to the debate. <br /><br />I will throw out what might wind up being a couple parting shots:<br /><br />It was not the masses who decided Roe V Wade. It was the Supreme Court. Roe V. Wade would not have survived a popular vote in that day. Not that I think the majority is always correct. (Mike aptly pointed that out already, of course) As you already know I'm more concerned with God's opinion (as revealed in Scripture) than man's. Even aside from that, however, I think it logical to conclude that conception must be the beginning of life. Regardless, I must commend you for what I consider to be good logic to see the difficulty in trying to set anything in between. Sometimes middle is best- like middle of the lane when driving. But sometimes the middle of the road is where you suddenly find a concrete median strip! Best keep your eyes open and watching where you are headed. Some prefer the middle here also, but there is little to commend it. Some things beg for a side to be taken. Sometimes all that is in the middle is quicksand. Sometimes neutrality is a myth. I believe this is such a time both in regards to defining when life starts and whether abortion is right or wrong. What conclusions anyone makes regarding where life begins really reveals much about their beliefs about whether truth can be relative and redefinable for convenience sake or not. It gets very messy when arbitrarily drawing lines based on mere opinion, although it could be concluded to be as good a point as any if one did not believe in any moral absolutes. Problem with those who believe this way is they inevitably forget that their opinion was the yardstick defining that line- if they even bother with defining it at all. Sometimes they even forget to allow anyone else that same privilege. Then there always comes some point of conflict or contradiction, eventually. Just as using an absolute measure is helpful when building a house, so is using certain absolutes in life.<br /><br />Any time there are many people there are usually at least as many opinions. I'm OK with this. Oh, I like everyone else would be delighted if everyone had the good sense to see things my way , but freedom to think for oneself is a very good thing, right? (A bunch of clones like me would further my flaws as well as my positive qualities- clones are not what we need) Within our diversity of opinions can often be found something of a collective majority. Pollsters make their living trying to discern the latest way the wind has decided to blow then mediocre politicians pay far too much attention to this. They waffle and go back and forth like the wind. Problem is this can be a lot like a headless body or even like a bunch of Jello spilled on the kitchen floor. No real consensus, no real direction. Nothing much accomplished as a result. <br /><br />I do support our freedom of opinion. I just think it prudent that we have some direction to be headed- a direction not merely dependent on public opinion. This direction does matter; it should be somewhere which benefits the whole in the long run; not merely for the short term, and not merely a vocal minority. There needs to be a collective vision. Occasionally hindsight says that we didn't quite acheive what we hoped with certain goals. Sometimes it says we were flat wrong. This is a bit subjective, of course, depending on which side you stand. But the fact is the majority isn't always right. I don't know any individual who is always right, and while there is a buffering effect of plurality, the majority occasionally calls it wrong. <br /><br />So why appeal to public opinion for an answer to the ethics of abortion? If people once opposed it and now support it does it mean they were wrong before? What if it goes back to opposing it? (Some polls say the majority never actually favored it, not even now!) Even the Supreme Court reverses itself from time to time. If you have no absolutes who can say which was is actually right? What if truth really could be redefined at will? Then a society opens itself to much larger conflict because there are always differing opinions which should be theoretically equal. And eventually one side will rationalize that no cost is too great to win. That is when no one wins, and all lose, since when the rules go out the window people get hurt. Respect gets tossed aside to be replaced by strife and every selfishness. This is not highly recommended for the long term health of any society. The rules which help define a healthy society help preserve that society by providing a framework which builds rather than destroys. Looks to me that we in America are starting to sit on the fence with regard to moral absolutes. I'm concerned that our framework is suffering from dry rot. I'm not going to say one side is 100% right all the time and the other wrong 100% of the time, but we have diverged greatly only to cause a large internal division. Imagine a driver's ed car with two steering wheels. One person is trying to go right, the other left. Who will win? The stronger of the two, assuming that they don't wreck and both get hurt or killed during the struggle. We need to make a conscious decision for a change- we need to decide whether we will give in and go with the anarchy of relativism or with the stability of some moral absolutes. I believe that any rational person fully thinking through the implications will decide that some moral absolutes are necessary. Who doesn't think murder is wrong? Then why allow decay around the edges of your philosophy? The rot that softens our morals will no more be satisfied with just a little than will the hole in the bottom of your boat be satisfied just letting a little water in.<br />Gets messy, doesn't it?<br /><br />Proverbs 29:18- "Without a vision the people perish."