How do you feel about the LP platform on abortion?

[Truth Warrior]

I'm no fan of most of what SCOTUS does, and roe V wade is especially odious, so we can settle that for starters.

I agree with the err on the side of caution idea -- we could have a bit of margin to the usual time for brain waves, just to be sure. We also need to measure them more accurately, I don't think the time has been completely nailed down on that. I'm quite confident two cells are not self aware though. Actually, I think it's more likely that animals are aware than fertilized eggs.

Perhaps I really should give more thought to vegitarianism. As I've said though, my religious beliefs also indicate to me that animals are not aware, so I'm not worried too much ...

I always prefer simpler. If you don't want to be a parent, don't get pregnant.

No pregnancy, no abortion, no problem. POOF!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I always prefer simpler. If you don't want to be a parent, don't get pregnant.

No pregnancy, no abortion, no problem. POOF!

Expecting adults to behave responsibly-who'da thunk it?

 

[tremendoustie]

I always prefer simpler. If you don't want to be a parent, don't get pregnant.

No pregnancy, no abortion, no problem. POOF!

I agree that that is moral behavior, but it's also bit of a pipe dream to imagine that moral behavior will be followed in all cases (or these days, even most). Also, I think we both believe people should be free. It would be highly immoral to make aborting a fetus illegal, if it is not a person. Not as immoral as killing a fetus after it is a person, but immoral nonetheless.

A woman does have a right to privacy, and to make decisions about her own body, as long as she is not harming another person in doing so. So, our perspective is not to manage the fertility of the country, or enforce moral rules about parenthood, but rather to prevent murder, and secondarily, to protect privacy. This implies that we must make abortion illegal when the baby is a person, and that it must be legal when it is not.

Of course, we need to agree on a rational definition of the beginning of personhood in order to do so, as we have for the end of personhood. I think the same defintion would be reasonable for both.

 

[TurtleBurger]

let's see here... according to catholicism, if you die with a mortal sin that you have not repented for... you go to hell.
Masturbation(spilling seed) is a mortal sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.
According to the men in funny hats.. you go to hell if you jerk off.
Any questions?

Murder is a felony.
Stealing a car is a felony.
And yet, stealing a car is not murder.

 

[asimplegirl]

I am probably the MOST pro life person that you could meet, personally, but I think it is not and should not be a legal matter. Its just not my business, I am all about rights in the political arena.

I will always stand up for personal rights, even ones I disagree with, as the next rights taken away will be mine.

 

[tremendoustie]

I am probably the MOST pro life person that you could meet, personally, but I think it is not and should not be a legal matter. Its just not my business, I am all about rights in the political arena.

I will always stand up for personal rights, even ones I disagree with, as the next rights taken away will be mine.

I certainly agree with your sentiment, and would agree 100% if we were talking about a law against drugs, or gambling, or the like -- but the government has a legitimate role in prosecuting violence. So, if the baby is a person, it should be legally protected, right? I mean, if I go smother great aunt matilda, it shouldn't be legal just because my personal morality says life ends at 80.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

Life begins at conception, but you are a not an individual, a person, and do not have any rights until you are born!

Why is this so hard for some people understand…FALLOW THE PROPERTY.

Until a child is born, the fetus is a part of the mothers body, the mother is the original owner of her body (the property), thus the fetus growing in her body belongs to her.
The property owner can do as they want with their own property, thus the mother has a right to chose whether or not to let it continue to live.
I would have no problem with women getting pregnant just to have abortions to sell their fetus for harvesting stem cells.

Now if you kill a mother and her child, then yes, you are accountable for 2 deaths, because you were not the owner of either property.
If a doctor harms or kills a fetus by accident, he is not the property owner, and the mother has the right to sue him for the damage.

I also think that suicide should be legal. It is a victimless crime, thus not a crime.

I also support the idea of allowing premeditated murder of anyone crossing the border illegally. The government should offer a bounty of $100 per body brought in. The government should cover this cost by harvesting organs from the dead bodies, and turning the rest turned into fertilizer. And yes I would be ok with killing the women and children also, they are a bigger drain on our economy then the men anyways.

I would still want the government to own the roads, but I would like them to respect my right to free travel and not place restrictions on my speed or my choice of driving styles, unless I cause an accident. The speed I am traveling at should be non of their concern unless I actually hit someone else’s property. At that point my speed should be cited as a reason for the crash. All these stupid driving laws are just taking away my right to chose. Should I not have the right to make a bad choice and drive like an ass if I want too? I don’t care that I may be risking someone else life, they had the choice to stay home, or to take a back road, charge me if I actually injure someone!

 

[JS4Pat]

Life begins at conception, but you are a not an individual, a person, and do not have any rights until you are born!

How do you know that is the case?

How do you know personhood isn't established somewhere between conception and birth?

 

[axiomata]

Life begins at conception, but you are a not an individual, a person, and do not have any rights until you are born!

Does the government then turn me into an individual when I am born, giving me those rights associated with it?

There's no natural difference between 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after. No major religion recognizes the soul coming into the body at birth.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Expecting adults to behave responsibly-who'da thunk it?

Actually at this point, it's really just more of a fading hope.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I agree that that is moral behavior, but it's also bit of a pipe dream to imagine that moral behavior will be followed in all cases (or these days, even most). Also, I think we both believe people should be free. It would be highly immoral to make aborting a fetus illegal, if it is not a person. Not as immoral as killing a fetus after it is a person, but immoral nonetheless.

A woman does have a right to privacy, and to make decisions about her own body, as long as she is not harming another person in doing so. So, our perspective is not to manage the fertility of the country, or enforce moral rules about parenthood, but rather to prevent murder, and secondarily, to protect privacy. This implies that we must make abortion illegal when the baby is a person, and that it must be legal when it is not.

Of course, we need to agree on a rational definition of the beginning of personhood in order to do so, as we have for the end of personhood. I think the same defintion would be reasonable for both.

Our species is stuck in barbarism. I think it may just eventually kill us all.

At what nanosecond does personhood occur. Is it the SAME for everyone? I'm skeptical.

Conception is rational. NEW human DNA. Perhaps it's NOT for us to decide. For barbarians, we're pretty durned arrogant. A very dangerous combination.<IMHO>

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Our species is stuck in barbarism. I think it may just eventually kill us all.

At what nanosecond does personhood occur. Is it the SAME for everyone? I'm skeptical.

Conception is rational. NEW human DNA. Perhaps it's NOT for us to decide. For barbarians, we're pretty durned arrogant. A very dangerous combination.<IMHO>

QFT! Here's another one-Why do some governments get to overthrow others? That's pretty barbaric too, IMHO. <end off-topic bump>

 

[tremendoustie]

Our species is stuck in barbarism. I think it may just eventually kill us all.

At what nanosecond does personhood occur. Is it the SAME for everyone? I'm skeptical.

Conception is rational. NEW human DNA. Perhaps it's NOT for us to decide. For barbarians, we're pretty durned arrogant. A very dangerous combination.<IMHO>

No, of course it wouldn't be the same nanosecond for everyone. We'd need to set a time which was sure to exclude all babies with active brains -- play it safe, as you say. I just don't think a strong case can be made that killing two cells is murder -- and I think we'd be a lot more likely to get later abortions outlawed if we left this hard line approach. It's the best propaganda NOW's got, to say that their crazy opponents want to protect an egg and sperm.

In any case, we've got to turn the debate away from the ridiculous circus we have now, and back to the main point, which is when life begins.

 

[Truth Warrior]

No, of course it wouldn't be the same nanosecond for everyone. We'd need to set a time which was sure to exclude all babies with active brains -- play it safe, as you say. I just don't think a strong case can be made that killing two cells is murder -- and I think we'd be a lot more likely to get later abortions outlawed if we left this hard line approach. It's the best propaganda NOW's got, to say that their crazy opponents want to protect an egg and sperm.

In any case, we've got to turn the debate away from the ridiculous circus we have now, and back to the main point, which is when life begins.

Keep it simple. Just stop killing babies. It's barbaric. DUH!

 

[ConvertedRepublican]

Our species is stuck in barbarism. I think it may just eventually kill us all.

At what nanosecond does personhood occur. Is it the SAME for everyone? I'm skeptical.

Conception is rational. NEW human DNA. Perhaps it's NOT for us to decide. For barbarians, we're pretty durned arrogant. A very dangerous combination.<IMHO>

Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan) wrote once: "Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural."
No matter how hard we try to be 'civilized' in this country, as long as we are murdering our young, we will suffer the fate of all barbaric nations.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan) wrote once: "Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural."
No matter how hard we try to be 'civilized' in this country, as long as we are murdering our young, we will suffer the fate of all barbaric nations.

When asked by a reporter what he thought of western civilization, Gandhi once replied, "I think it would be a good idea".

Thanks!

 

[Krugerrand]

If they experience that warm wet dark bag, they are aware and have minds, and I would say killing them would be murder. I don't think two cells experience this, or anything, but I do think that a baby right before birth does. So, the question is, when does the change occur? And I think brain waves are a good delineator. It also makes sense to have a similar definition for the beginning of life as the end of it, and we use brain waves to determine death.

While I'm no fan of your self-aware approach (I find it too philosophical and not enough biological) I can respect an argument for using a consistent definition for beginning and end of life. Of course, I think I still disagree with it if favor of recognizing the life cycle of the human organism.

 

[Krugerrand]

let's see here... according to catholicism, if you die with a mortal sin that you have not repented for... you go to hell.
Masturbation(spilling seed) is a mortal sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.
According to the men in funny hats.. you go to hell if you jerk off.
Any questions?

No questions ... just an observation. You seem to have a great desire to summarize and then complain about Catholicism. I'm not claiming to be a expert on it, or even have some great insight into it. BUT - your summaries seem to be incorrect; the references you quote certainly contradict your summaries.

I simply ask that if you bring a tangent to the conversation that it at least be accurate (and relevant would be nice, too.)

 

[Krugerrand]

No, of course it wouldn't be the same nanosecond for everyone. We'd need to set a time which was sure to exclude all babies with active brains -- play it safe, as you say. I just don't think a strong case can be made that killing two cells is murder -- and I think we'd be a lot more likely to get later abortions outlawed if we left this hard line approach. It's the best propaganda NOW's got, to say that their crazy opponents want to protect an egg and sperm.

In any case, we've got to turn the debate away from the ridiculous circus we have now, and back to the main point, which is when life begins.

I also agree that it is crucial to focus on when life begins. Even as we've disagreed on that point - it would be super hard to make a rational argument that would permit partial birth abortions as well as many other later term abortions.

Also, the cash for babies argument spelled out earlier could add a huge financial disincentive for abortions. Money makes things happen. From a practical standpoint, it deserves consideration.

 

[asimplegirl]

Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
let's see here... according to catholicism, if you die with a mortal sin that you have not repented for... you go to hell.
Masturbation(spilling seed) is a mortal sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.
According to the men in funny hats.. you go to hell if you jerk off.
Any questions?

I don't know where you heard this... I was taught this in Pentecostal, Baptist, and Methodist churches, but HAVE NOT been told this in Catholic Church, actually they are pretty accepting of many things.

BTW, I have been all of these religions, and am now Catholic, as my family up to my mom and all of hubby's family are Catholic.