...and my "Freedom of Choice" is to allow others to have theirs.
If that is your argument against abortion, you have truly lost the debate. This is seriously a new low for abortion opponents.
To "LDS liberal" Even when their choice is to kill children?To
"Kalindra" You clearly demonstrate the "low" in advocates for
"My "freedom of choice" is to only take a life when my life, or my
loved ones' lives, is threatened."And Doug, believe it or
not, that's what a lot of pro-choice people want as well. Unfortunately,
the radical right is even battling this. Folks like Rick Santorum have proposed
to completely outlaw abortion, no matter the reason or consequence.Here's the key issue, FREEDOM. If you don't want an abortion,
don't get one! Leave this deeply personal decision to those who
I am generally anti abortion and generally pro gun. But this is a nonsensical
letter that conflates two hot button issues and to no good effect.
Doug, just because you believe that the second an egg and a sperm meet a
"human" is formed doesn't mean the rest of us do. So at it's
foundation I reject your premise that all pregnancy ending acts are "killing
children". Your premise is a religious argument, because without a life
exciting soul (either in the egg and sperm or waiting to enter) these are just
cells growing towards the potential of a human. So unless you can show the
world the soul the secular argument (that seperates church and state) must
prevail..lest you subject yourself to someone elses religious beliefs (sharia
law), which I doubt you'll do.
I think this maybe a very convincing argument if we all started with the same
false assumption Doug does that a fetus is the same as a child but that is far
to large a leap in logic for many of us to make.
Pragmatist,Just when does a blastocyst/fetus become a human? If it's
not as delivery, then the line has no clear location. Those who believe life
begins at conception are no less wrong than the floating criteria applied by
Doug, the problem is your argument can be torn up by any college student. Your
argument which you set up isn't exactly cognitively challenging to set on
its head. Watch:So you claim that those who desire
stricter regulations on gun control are acting hypocritically as they are for
"choice" when it comes to abortion, right? Did it occur to
you, that you folks, who argue that "choice" and "freedom" are
being "attacked" by gun control advocates are acting hypocritically by
taking away the "choice" and "freedom" of the parents?Using your own logic, how can one argue that we cannot have stricter gun
control because it "takes away freedom" while arguing against
"choice" when it comes to abortion?So I suggest that
Doug:1. Admits that these 2 issues need to be kept separate, as they
should. They are 2 completely different and unrelated issues.2. Admit that
he and his ilk are acting hypocritically by advocating "choice" on one
hand while arguing against "choice" on the other.3. Get a college
education to learn how to think deeper and rationally rather than merely
regurgitate old AM radio talking points, emotion, and hate speech.
Owl, At birth is the definite point. Aside from that it's conjecture and
opinion both of which have been used to reach current policy. That's the
point..there isn't an objective point of humaness prior to birth. There
are pretty good markers for public policy that consider all points of view..but
inception isn't one of them.
I have never heard of puppies, or kittens, or fish growing in a human womb. It
is always human.What a sorry bunch of excuses for terminating
inconvenient humans! Next our seniors will become inconvenient, and
then the republicans, and you will want to terminate them too.If you
parents don't do what is convenient shall we terminate them? All the rationalization, convoluted reasoning, or name changing in the world
will never make it okay to terminate (murder) inconvenient (conceived by
irresponsible choices) humans babies.
"I have never heard of puppies, or kittens, or fish growing in a human womb.
It is always human."What a strange comment."All
the rationalization, convoluted reasoning, or name changing in the world will
never make it okay to terminate (murder) inconvenient (conceived by
irresponsible choices) humans babies."Well then, if that is what
you believe, don't have an abortion. I am going to take a guess, though,
that you are male, and therefore would never have to worry about that decision
anyway."To "Kalindra" You clearly demonstrate the
"low" in advocates for abortion."Doug, can you show us
where in Kalindra's post she advocate's for abortion? It is a short
post, and I cannot see it anywhere. Where are you seeing it? And why
do you think it is a "low"? Or did you just see what she wrote and
repeat it and you thought that was clever somehow?
50,000,000 lives were destroyed in America since 1976 by the choice made by the
mother of those unborn babies. It doesn't matter whether you believe that
life starts when conception takes place but it does matter that you fully
understand that life ends when that abortion takes place.What is
different from someone pointing a gun at you and pulling the trigger or having a
doctor use a vacuum to destroy your life, you are still dead. Weeping and wailing because there are monsters out there who dare to make
afraid while you drive to the abortion clinic to destroy a life within yourself
is the highest form of irony.Respect for life is not situational.
How can anyone say that they revere life and that guns must be abolished when
they participate in the greatest destruction of life ever known in the history
of this earth?
Abortion is wrong, except in some rare circumstances. I've had an unplanned
pregnancy that wasn't at all convenient, but I am extremely grateful that
it became a full term pregnancy anyway. I would not want to live with the
knowledge that I took a "convenient" way out, and I am thankful I
don't have to. Periodically I receive a note from the human whom I bore
(inconveniently) thanking me for choosing life, but in the years I didn't
have a relationship with him I was glad too.
MR.."It doesn't matter whether you believe that life starts when
conception takes place but it does matter that you fully understand that life
ends when that abortion takes place." Of course it matters whether you
believe that life takes place at conception. Becuase if it doesn't and you
terminate an early pregnancy you aren't terminating a "human life".
A very different scenario than terminating early developing cells. You
continually overlay your personal values on the discussion, and because they are
your values you believe they are apriori. They aren't..end of story. Live
as you will but many of us refuse to accept your tyranny.
"It doesn't matter whether you believe that life starts when conception
takes place but it does matter that you fully understand that life ends when
that abortion takes place."Mike, if life hasn't started
then it has not ended. I don't believe in the argument about potential life
either. Each sperm and each egg is arguably potential life in that context, yet
I think that saying contraception is somehow immoral is a silly argument. And I
don't see much more validity in the argument that once that egg and sperm
come together it is now suddenly life.But, thank goodness, I
don't have to make that decision. And, quiet frankly, neither do you, Mike.
We are guys, we will never have to make, what I can only imagine, is a very
difficult decision of having an abortion.Tell you what, before we
start worrying about the choices women have to make regarding this issue, why
don't we try to make sure that all children already living in the world
have enough to eat, access to good health care, education, safety, freedom,
prosperity, etc. . . That should take up enough of our time.
Well if you don't like stealing don't steal. Same argument for
don't get aborthion. Laws are here to protect people. I would never abuse
my children but there should be no law against child abuse as they are someone
elses kids. That is the flaw in the pro so called choice argument. Bad
situations ok to abort. Do we kill people already born since they are in bad
circumstances? What is the diffrence there?
"...Gun control...".The weapon the coward used at Sandy Hook
was a killing machine.The weapons used by cowards who murder human
beings are killing machines.If Americans want to own killing
machines, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect that choice.If
Americans want to abort babies, that choice is protected by the law.If you don't like killing machines or abortion, work to change the law.
I personally abhor abortion. But banning it would work the same as banning guns.
It wouldn't work. Are we really going to investigate all miscarriages as a
possible illegal abortion? When it's your wife? Would it be ok then?We could hope to curtail abortions. What actually works is widely
available birth control, lot of YOU adopting babies, opportunity and sex
education. What doesn't seem to work is just telling kids not
to have sex. It just doesn't work.
I'm pro-choice but I favor seeking a path by which we have fewer abortions.
The nations with the lowest abortion rates in the world are not actually those
where it is illegal but rather Belgium and the Netherlands, nations with
comprehensive sex education and wide readily accessible availability of birth
control. But no... pro-lifers won't let us have that kind of stuff...
I succeeded in my letter in that I touched some "neves" and got many
views. Hopefully, we can all come to an understanding that there is such a
thing as "black and white". compromise is not always good, and things
are not always "relative". Laws are seldom logical and should be based
on "principle" rather than "control". Our representatives
should be elected on the basis of character, not on party or popularity
"My "freedom of choice" is to only take a life when my life, or my
loved ones' lives, is threatened." ========= I
hope the letter writer understands that many abortions are taken to save the
life of the woman.