How optimistic are the "pro-lifers"? Give me your "No Later Than" Date-

Gosh I wonder why, could it be that they DON'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!

 

Sounds like Bill Clinton, huh?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=325774&page=3&p=1063177971#post1063177971

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=325774&page=11

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=322479&page=7

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=322479&page=7

 

How so?

How do I sound like Bill Clinton?

 

Trying to "redefine" words....when it's shown you contradicted yourself.


BTW, off-topic, Sam....are you the product of home-schooling or a fundamentalist Christian school education? No slam...just curious.

 

I am not home schooled, but I do go to church and I believe what the Bible teaches. But please, don't blame my religion for my stance on abortion! I can think of at least two non-Christians (people who aren't even religious either!, one of them is a strong atheist) who share my pro-life beliefs. You don't have to be a Christian or religious to know that abortion is wrong.

 

Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that Sam has morals; he has said so. Someone accused him of "needing to feel superior to others" as the likely reasons for his morality. I'm simply pointing out that he may also have societal concerns as reasons for his morality.

And yes, some people do have to place their morality above the morality of others. Our entire societal structure is based partly on morals, and has been since before the Magna Carta. Most Americans believe in a govt that can regulate the health, safety, and morals of a society. Many here seem to think laws can be based on the first 2 only, but they would be on the wrong side of history in regard to every civilization that has ever existed.

 

"blame" your religion, Sam??? But regardless of your "non-Christian/atheist pro-lifers"....you DO base YOUR objection to abortion on religion, right?

 

So using those morals as a basis to impose laws on others who don't share your morals is ok, because if that is correct then I should also be able to impose my morals on others as well.

Personally I couldn't careless what another persons moral position is .. as long as they don't try to impose their own personal moral opinion onto those who have a different personal moral opinion.
Governments impose laws that act as deterrents to those who would do things that effect the society as a whole, abortion has no detrimental effect on society as a whole, it is purely, and always has been a personal issue, just as the decision as to whether to raise children at all is a personal decision, would you agree to the government imposing how many children you can have, or even if you can have them at all?

 

Morals are used to draw lines in many areas of society. Pornography, gambling, prostitution, family and marriage laws, etc. I don't understand the stance that morals have no say so in abortion laws. Why can morals NEVER be considered in regard to laws on abortion? Abortion laws are needed to protect the sanctity of life. If you don't know what sanctity of life means, I suggest you travel to places like Sudan, or other areas of Africa, the ME, and Asia to see why a government has an interest in protecting the sanctity of life. When life is considered worthless in a society, it breaks down, very bad things start happening. I've been to enough countries to see how some govts don't place this sanctity of life concept high enough.

 

It is not morals that are the basis of drawn lines in society. It is the effect of a particular action on the order in society. Lines that drawn to regulate pornography, gambling, prostitution, etc, are drawn because it is believed they will maintain order in society. Quite obviously lines drawn to eliminate gambling, as well as liquor consumption, drug laws, and anti-abortion laws, failed dismally, as people won't obey laws that are not passed and enforced by a consensus of the people. Abortion laws simply don't work to protect the "sanctity of life." They not only don't work, but they cause deaths because of the number of women having illegal and unsafe abortions. One could say that if you truly value life, you will support the availability of safe abortion.

 

You are confusing the the coincidence of agreement between laws and morals with the morals being the basis of the laws. It is not so as evidenced by the fact that pornography, gambling prostitution are not illegal everywhere, thus demonstrating that morals are not absolute and imposing the morals of one group on another is just bad.
Second, there is no sanctity of life outside religious dogma or in any laws.

You are again confusing things. Lawlessness does not amount to sanctity of life.

 

Nope. I was pro-life even before I had my beliefs.

 

Based on what?

 

You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, however when you enter in debates those beliefs will be questioned and it is up to you to provide the 'because" of those beliefs, if you don't want them questioned don't enter into debates.

 

Science and common sense and decency.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay. But I have no problem with my beliefs being questioned.

 

Well obviously you do as shown by the nature of some of your replies.

 

Give me at least two examples of me doing that.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=326511&page=2

 

Science doesn't support your theory that the unborn are persons. Therefore, there is nothing "indecent" about abortion.

 

Well Gorn beat me to it on one.

 

The abortion debate is a basic difference of opinion about when a conceptus is a person with rights. Pro-lifers believes at conception, pro-lifers believe it is at some point after conception. What makes the pro-life BELIEF more "moral"?

 

Doesn't honestly matter to me, I'm just pointing out that it would be easier to ban abortion altogether than to enforce the current bans we have on child porn - if they wanted to do it, they could do it easily.

 

Pro-lifers don't believe it begins at conception, you're talking about the most extreme degree of 'pro-life'

It'd say life begins when the embryo becomes a sentient fetus, with a brain - in order to qualify as life (human or animal), a brain and cognizance is required.

Pro-choicers tend to disregard life altogether and simply argue in terms of 'property rights', similar to the pre-abolition arguments in favor of slavery.

 

Be interested to see how you would you enforce such a ban, can you give some details.

 

Doesn't take long for the old adage of "abortion is like slavery" to rear it's head .. problem is that it has been debunked countless times before, yet pro-lifers still insist on using it.

and what makes you think that we argue only that it is in terms of property rights .. there are other arguments in favor of abortion that are more compelling that simple property rights.