Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm was just trying to figure out why abortion is such a huge issue in the USA and is apparently so relevant to recent Presidential elections, then it hit me:A candidate's religious beliefs can better be gauged if their stance on abotion is know and documented.Same thing for stance on Sex Ed and premarital sex.Similar corolarries can be made for related issueBasically, it seems to boil down to Religion, which makes me ask: What the fck does (or should) religion have to do with running a country unless there is some kind of groundswell by a certain religious element to base rule of a country on said unnamed religion? Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? If women only voted whether or not to have it legal and available, what would the result be? What would the demographic of said women voters be?I look around the world and notice that the countries that have a government based on religion (as much as anything else) are ruled primarily by men and, in some cases, are countries in which women don't even have the right to vote.I'm coming up with some unpleasant scenarios in my head about this...Discuss...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you are off base here. Anti abortion and religion really have nothing to do with each other. It just happens that many religious people don't believe in abortion.I am not religious, I do not believe in abortion for the most part. The thing is the legislation is tricky. While agree, to some extent, that if the mothers life is in imminent danger, incest, rape, and any other scenario that falls across this path (in the first trimester) abortion should be an option. The problem is, how do you define that? That is where roe v wade comes into play.I don't think the issue should be as big of a platform for POTUS as it is, because it is really a supreme court decision. I am not naive enough to think that the president does not obv have a say so on the seats of the supreme court, but the supreme court leans conservative right now and r v. w is not being over turned.Copernicus once said something about if it is a constitutionally valid law it will stand up, if not it will be changed.I also agree that it should be more a state issue, but at the same time, that should not mean a teenager can drive from Oregon to Ca to get an abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are off base here. Anti abortion and religion really have nothing to do with each other. It just happens that many religious people don't believe in abortion.I am not religious, I do not believe in abortion for the most part. The thing is the legislation is tricky. While agree, to some extent, that if the mothers life is in imminent danger, incest, rape, and any other scenario that falls across this path (in the first trimester) abortion should be an option. The problem is, how do you define that? That is where roe v wade comes into play.I don't think the issue should be as big of a platform for POTUS as it is, because it is really a supreme court decision. I am not naive enough to think that the president does not obv have a say so on the seats of the supreme court, but the supreme court leans conservative right now and r v. w is not being over turned.Copernicus once said something about if it is a constitutionally valid law it will stand up, if not it will be changed.I also agree that it should be more a state issue, but at the same time, that should not mean a teenager can drive from Oregon to Ca to get an abortion.
What is it about abortion that you don't believe? On what grounds is the legislation built? What reasoning is laid out one way or another to allow or disallow abortion? I tend to think that those who have the power to make that legislation are more likely to fall back on their religious beliefs is designing the laws and bills.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it about abortion that you don't believe? On what grounds is the legislation built? What reasoning is laid out one way or another to allow or disallow abortion? I tend to think that those who have the power to make that legislation are more likely to fall back on their religious beliefs is designing the laws and bills.
Trying to paint those against abortion as nothing more than religious zealots is wrong. Would you paint those against slavery with the same brush? Abortion is morally wrong and against the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do consider myself religious, but it has nothing to do with my beliefs on abortion, though they are consistent. My Church is against birth control, but I would never try to impose that view on society at large. Abortion is a separate and completely different matter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it about abortion that you don't believe? On what grounds is the legislation built? What reasoning is laid out one way or another to allow or disallow abortion? I tend to think that those who have the power to make that legislation are more likely to fall back on their religious beliefs is designing the laws and bills.
This is an ignorant statement. I don't even know how to respond.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally disagree.In the past, I believe abortion has been overrated as an issue as far as it's impact on a presidential election.With what is going on right now with the economy/bailout and foreign affairs/terrorism among other things, I believe abortion is virtually irrelevent in this coming presidential election

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry, Fail.I am not "Religious" and consider myself "Mixed" on abortion as well as the Death Penalty. Also mixed on many other "litmus" test issues.Bottom line: Conservatives come in many different "shades" and from different starting points with a variety of positions on all topics. Don't try and lump them into a single profile even regarding a single issue like Abortion. Same thing with Liberals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the issue should be as big of a platform for POTUS as it is, because it is really a supreme court decision. I am not naive enough to think that the president does not obv have a say so on the seats of the supreme court, but the supreme court leans conservative right now and r v. w is not being over turned.
It's been very close to being overturned. The court currently stands 5-4 and two of the supporters are insanely old. It's kind of a key time in terms of SCOTUS appointments for this issue.
Copernicus once said something about if it is a constitutionally valid law it will stand up, if not it will be changed.
I think its in a legitimately gray area and may continue to be subject to the winds of interpretation and political climate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to paint those against abortion as nothing more than religious zealots is wrong. Would you paint those against slavery with the same brush? Abortion is morally wrong and against the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do consider myself religious, but it has nothing to do with my beliefs on abortion, though they are consistent. My Church is against birth control, but I would never try to impose that view on society at large. Abortion is a separate and completely different matter.
You're not saying anything here except that it's your personal choice that abortion isn't right.
This is an ignorant statement. I don't even know how to respond.
I'm asking questions, dude, not criticizing. When you can't substantiate yuor opinions and beliefs, how can you expect others to understand your point of view, let alone adhere to any kind of lawmaking authority
Totally disagree.In the past, I believe abortion has been overrated as an issue as far as it's impact on a presidential election.With what is going on right now with the economy/bailout and foreign affairs/terrorism among other things, I believe abortion is virtually irrelevent in this coming presidential election
Again, I'm asking questions, not making statements...Thanks for not paying attention.
Yeah, sorry, Fail.I am not "Religious" and consider myself "Mixed" on abortion as well as the Death Penalty. Also mixed on many other "litmus" test issues.Bottom line: Conservatives come in many different "shades" and from different starting points with a variety of positions on all topics. Don't try and lump them into a single profile even regarding a single issue like Abortion. Same thing with Liberals.
See above...What the hell is wrong with you guys? If what RAC says is true, then how can any nation possibly consider passing legislation that is sweeping and Constituionally correct?All this has proven to me, so far, is:There are widely differing opinionsAbortion isn't/shouldn't be as big an issue as it isSome secular people think it is "wrong" but can't substantiate whyThis is a discussion, not me trying to catch someone making a mistake, ffs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares, I think people who actively campaign against abortion are really pathetic. If you don't want to have an abortion, fine, good for you, now stay the hell out of other people's business and get on with your own life.I'm also very annoyed that it gets as much coverage as it does when there are a million more important things that could be discussed instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury. Your verbage is not in the tone of asking questions, it is very accusatory in nature. I explained my thoughts on abortion in my first response. Everyone here will have a different answer.

It's been very close to being overturned. The court currently stands 5-4 and two of the supporters are insanely old. It's kind of a key time in terms of SCOTUS appointments for this issue. I think its in a legitimately gray area and may continue to be subject to the winds of interpretation and political climate.
I too believe it is a gray area.
Who cares, I think people who actively campaign against abortion are really pathetic. If you don't want to have an abortion, fine, good for you, now stay the hell out of other people's business and get on with your own life.I'm also very annoyed that it gets as much coverage as it does when there are a million more important things that could be discussed instead.
The question is and always will be when does life begin and when does that life get the same rights as natural breathing human.I don't know if we will every agree as a society as to when this is, but the majority of the country would rather ere on the side of caution, then allow 3rd trimester babies being aborted.I will go out on a limb here and say most (not all) of you that are vehimnently for abortion have not had a child and gone to dozens of sonograms and ultra sounds and been through the process of seeing how a child develops right before your eyes. I have a 3D ultrasound of my son from 25 weeks, and it looks just like him when he was born. I cannot imagine something that beautiful and such a gift (not from a religious standpoint) being killed because the mother cannot afford it.There are thousands of people in this country on waiting lists for adoptions. There is one here at FCP that I know of.This is why people don't think its ok to allow people to just go and have abortions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercury. Your verbage is not in the tone of asking questions, it is very accusatory in nature. I explained my thoughts on abortion in my first response. Everyone here will have a different answer.I too believe it is a gray area.The question is and always will be when does life begin and when does that life get the same rights as natural breathing human.I don't know if we will every agree as a society as to when this is, but the majority of the country would rather ere on the side of caution, then allow 3rd trimester babies being aborted.I will go out on a limb here and say most (not all) of you that are vehimnently for abortion have not had a child and gone to dozens of sonograms and ultra sounds and been through the process of seeing how a child develops right before your eyes. I have a 3D ultrasound of my son from 25 weeks, and it looks just like him when he was born. I cannot imagine something that beautiful and such a gift (not from a religious standpoint) being killed because the mother cannot afford it.There are thousands of people in this country on waiting lists for adoptions. There is one here at FCP that I know of.This is why people don't think its ok to allow people to just go and have abortions.
Well, I disagree about the tone thing. I don't understand where you got the accusatory tone from. I'm not trying to rile anyone up, El Guapo, and I'm certainly not castigating you for your beliefs.I'm not accusing anyone of anything specific. People are entitled to their opinions. Where I think the abortion question has gone wrong is, as I tried to state at the outset, the fact that it seems to have become a Federal issue in the Presidential campaign as evidenced in part by some of the discussion and controversy about Palin's pregnant daughter and her own stance on abortion.Anyway...I know it's an emotional issue for some, but let's try and keep it based on the election aspect and not let it denigrate into people taking sides and going off on each other...For the record, I have two teenage kids and, later in life, had to be part of an abortion decision which, over time, proved to be the right choice.Respectfully...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't listen to those religious psychos, abortions are the bomb diggity. I never use contraception because I think it desensitises me and my boyfriend. We just do it unprotected, and whenever I get pregnant (which is generally two or three times a year) I just get an abortion. It doesn't hurt, in fact it kind of feels like a big warm ray of sunshine aimed straight at my abdomen. I feel a great sense of relief afterwards too, as if the baby that would have been is trying to tell me "Thank you, mommy, for saving me from the cruelty, pain and injustice of living. I can relax now in heaven, with all the other globs of inanimate tissue."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine Mercury, sometimes things don't come off the right way in type.I think it should be a state issue, but how do we prevent someone traveling from a anti abortion state to another to have an abortion? Kids should not be able to sneak off and get an abortion in the middle of the night. If people are choosing to have sex, then they need to be prepared for the consequences.My wife and I were married 2 months when we found out she was pregnant. I was not ready at all. Abortion never even entered my mind. Now I have these.0728081443.jpgI am 99% against abortion for birth control purposes. Obv mitigating circumstances e.g. rape, incest, danger to mother, things I cannot even think of, then I can see abortion being an option. When I was 18 I was probably a little more liberal on this issue. Here is the thing though. I don't necessarily agree with legislation making abortion illegal. But its very hard to make a law that says you can do A, but only if B, C, or D happens. Especially when those things are subjective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't listen to those religious psychos, abortions are the bomb diggity. I never use contraception because I think it desensitises me and my boyfriend. We just do it unprotected, and whenever I get pregnant (which is generally two or three times a year) I just get an abortion. It doesn't hurt, in fact it kind of feels like a big warm ray of sunshine aimed straight at my abdomen. I feel a great sense of relief afterwards too, as if the baby that would have been is trying to tell me "Thank you, mommy, for saving me from the cruelty, pain and injustice of living. I can relax now in heaven, with all the other globs of inanimate tissue."
man I shouldn't have laughed at this.I'm pretty much the furthest from religious you can get on here (save for crow. I don't love objective evidence that much.) and I think abortion is wrong. why? because to me it makes sense that the human life begins at conception, and I don't know the exact science behind it, but probably around day 3 when the egg is fully fertilized. lois made the argument one time and god help me, I pretty much agreed with him, that from that point on the fetus will be a human, so it is a human. you can say "but it doesn't have lung function until week 30" or whatever (I don't know the exact progression) but does that mean that it isn't human yet? you can look at the thing and tell that it is, and that it has no choice but to be human from that point on. to me, the whole thing of "a woman's choice" is baseless because it's not just her life she's deciding on. killing a fetus is killing a human life, in my opinion, and I think that is wrong.also, when a woman can get pregnant without a man's sperm, then she can make a "choice" about the baby without a man. till then, we've got a say too. bitches.
Link to post
Share on other sites
man I shouldn't have laughed at this.I'm pretty much the furthest from religious you can get on here (save for crow. I don't love objective evidence that much.) and I think abortion is wrong. why? because to me it makes sense that the human life begins at conception, and I don't know the exact science behind it, but probably around day 3 when the egg is fully fertilized. lois made the argument one time and god help me, I pretty much agreed with him, that from that point on the fetus will be a human, so it is a human. you can say "but it doesn't have lung function until week 30" or whatever (I don't know the exact progression) but does that mean that it isn't human yet? you can look at the thing and tell that it is, and that it has no choice but to be human from that point on. to me, the whole thing of "a woman's choice" is baseless because it's not just her life she's deciding on. killing a fetus is killing a human life, in my opinion, and I think that is wrong.also, when a woman can get pregnant without a man's sperm, then she can make a "choice" about the baby without a man. till then, we've got a say too. bitches.
What is sperm then, half-human? Does it get half rights? An embryo may be human in that it has human genes, but its not human in many important ways; it can't see, hear, feel, think, move, etc., the thing is just a few cells with no nervous system let alone a brain. The question is what is the relevant part of being human that affords us the full range of rights that humans deserve?
Link to post
Share on other sites
lois made the argument one time and god help me, I pretty much agreed with him, that from that point on the fetus will be a human, so it is a human. you can say "but it doesn't have lung function until week 30" or whatever (I don't know the exact progression) but does that mean that it isn't human yet?
IMO it may be "Human" at 3 days but it isnt strictly "alive" if it can't survive on its own outside the womb.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is sperm then, half-human? Does it get half rights? An embryo may be human in that it has human genes, but its not human in many important ways; it can't see, hear, feel, think, move, etc., the thing is just a few cells with no nervous system let alone a brain. The question is what is the relevant part of being human that affords us the full range of rights that humans deserve?
so somebody in a persistent vegetative state isn't a human anymore because they don't have all their senses? its a very dangerous statute to make to place limits on when a human can start to be or still be a human. insert godwin's law.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what it comes down to. The reason that this and the death penalty are such heated topics and why there is so much disdain when discussed.I could easily argue either side on both of those issues, and be darn convincing. And if there was someone who was on the fence, I could probably get them to lean which ever way I wanted them to based on some facts, stats, feelings, etc.There will never, ever, be a clear line in the sand on this issue. But the Pro Lifers have an easier line to draw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
so somebody in a persistent vegetative state isn't a human anymore because they don't have all their senses? its a very dangerous statute to make to place limits on when a human can start to be or still be a human. insert godwin's law.
It may be "dangerous", but bright lines are needed under the law or its impossible to administer. The other choice is to have no law at all, but that clearly will result in violating a living beings rights at some point in time.Letting someone that cant sustain itself despite being provided food, water and air die is not murder imo. Yes, you do get into knotty problems about brain function, but brain function is just a physical process that cant sustain life on its own.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...