1) Jewish people suffered mass murder in WWII; African Americans suffered Slavery in USA, Caribbean, and South America. 2) Sadly some murder is legal -- for instance during Korean and Vietnam wars USA did kill many civilians. About 2.5 million combined in two wars.
As we see from the poll, 85% of people support the right to abortion. Nevertheless, many people including myself view it as a moral equivalent of murder.
Yes, but when they say they "support the right to abortion", they are not talking about all abortion. There are many forms of abortion they are not envisioning when they make that statement. Just saying that this percent "supports abortion" is a drastic over-generalization.
My point is Freedom for all --> No law regulating abortion. --> No one prohibiting religious people of viewing abortion as murder. Abortion is a woman's right. But we are free to consider her actions as being similar to Minister Cain's actions.
What does freedom mean, on its most fundamental level? Doesn't it mean that those who violate your rights will face punishment?
My choice to get a degree in STEM was very wrong -- thus I am sort of lame on philosophical/humanitarian concepts.
Oh, so you made a big MISTAKE. Proving that your beliefs about abortion could also be very wrong here.
My views mean very little -- only the views of famous people or tens of millions of people mean anything. No one or influence would post on a small forum.
No one with a real voice posts on a small forum. I am of much lower Social Status then most people even here. I am a housekeeper.
@DEFinning, I realise that my most recent multi-section post may have been quite overwhelming and too much to deal with, so I'll make it easy for you by starting off with this simple question: Do you believe that abortion is a matter of womens' bodily rights and that women have the right to their bodies and therefore abortion is okay?
It seems you somehow got mixed up. Your last reply to me was not multi-section: it only said, "I gotcha!" And I included it, along w/ a cpl. of quotes from your prior reply-- which was also fairly short (& just a single section)-- in my last reply, post #669, which you liked. So I take it that: 1) your post, here, was intended for someone else and; 2) I have not left as distinctive an impression with you as I had imagined. Time will tell if my next post, to this thread, can make me more memorable to you.Ciao, for now.
Looks like you missed it. It happens. The alert system on here has messed up on me before, so perhaps it did for you. My reply here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ws-on-abortion.580016/page-27#post-1072257880
Yes, I'm an American & I've never lived outside this country (unless you count my year in Hawaii). But no, Chris, the finer details of abortion regulations are not something that garners the attention of anywhere near all Americans, esp. not men, unless they feel driven by concerns arising from their institutional religious faith. So I was not aware of that NY law; in fact it seems so shocking to me that I have to wonder if there aren't more conditions, within the law, that you've left out. Maybe the problem is that you digest my posts in small bites & assume that each piece you cut out for your replies is intended, by me, to stand alone; that is not the case. I generally see my posts as wholes, single arguments, regardless of how many points they include. If you look back further, therefore, you shouldn't ever have this type of question for me. The POINT I had been speaking of, at length, was the point of a fetus's potential independence from it's mother. I had just said that I'd be in favor of (what I believed to be the limit, set in Roe) being moved 2 weeks sooner, to 22 - 26 weeks of gestation, adding that the entire 3rd trimester (the point beyond 26 wks, = 6 mos.) should be off-limits. So when I say that a pregnant woman who did not wish to carry her fetus to term, provided that abortion services were available to her, should have had sufficient time to get an abortion prior to that point, I obviously mean the start of the 3rd trimester (which I'd just said should be off-limits). You are making a semantic argument here, that I see as pointless. If the law FORBIDS a pregnant woman from getting an abortion after a particular point, most reasonable people understand that as the same as REQUIRING her to continue carrying her child. Those other, "alternatives," to which you allude, but leave unexplained, are not necessarily even legal options; i.e., a woman who purposely took certain actions, designed to kill her unborn child, past the point at which abortion is allowed in that jurisdiction, would be opening herself to the potential, at least, of criminal charges being brought against her. First, you are again quibbling over meaningless semantics in seeing some difference between murder and equivalent to murder: you say, yourself, that the 2 are EQUIVALENT. That means they are equal. If there is an important distinction between them, vis a vis your argument, you have not defined that difference. As to the 1st quote, if you are saying that people are doing something equivalent to murder, it is understood that you are NOT in favor of allowing it to continue; therefore, your personal interpretation suggests you are saying that others should abide by the same standard. Of course, it would be easy for you to clear this up. What a person who did not wish to be misunderstood would say is, " I think it's like murder, but that's just my opinion," or, "but other people could (legitimately) see it differently." Is that how you feel? Because that's not the impression you've given. So, because I don't want to be going around this same bush, indefinitely, answer this directly: should there be additional LAWS against abortion, or should abortion be considered a VIOLATION of some other, extant laws? Because if your opinion is that the practice should be illegal, that is de facto saying that others should be compelled (legally) to comport with your opinion. I guess YOU somehow missed the explanation, from the Roe ruling, which I quoted from wikipedia, that the 24 - 28 week determination of VIABILITY was being considered WITH MEDICAL AIDS (like the machines cited in your example of a comatose patient). So you have no argument here.
I just wanted to address the false idea that in New York women can have abortions up until birth for no reason. Don't believe the Anti-Choice crap. They can IF the doctors say that the fetus is so severely damage , has sever health issues, etc., that life is not possible.
Thank you for clarifying that disinformation. Your explanation is much more in line with my perception of reality.
If you are suggesting that you contest Fox Hastings' claim, why would you not include a link backing up your view? Had you done no research before making your initial claim about NY, which both sounded dubious to me, on its face, & for which you included no link? Apparently you had expected me to accept your, "word for it." So your post, here, makes you seem highly hypocritical.
Then you don't understand the new law in New York. We had a big thread about this already and it was explained to you. A real doctor is not required to diagnose the woman with anything before she can get her late-term abortion. Now all it takes is an ordinary low level abortion worker to mark on a form that they think the woman "needs" it, even though that worker might be totally unqualified to even know, and could have little to lose if she is wrong or just flat out continued to lie. A doctor is not even required to see the woman anymore.
