Operation Rescue (Kansas)

[catzacker]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it? 

[HeinBallz]

I don't. Do you?

Maybe inadvertently at some point.

So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?

Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama?   If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. 

[slobber]

I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion.  Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.

I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.

Lots of people have weird beliefs.  Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.

*humans that have been birf'd.

I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.

[slobber]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?

A baby born at 8 months may be perfectly health but need a machine to live for the first week or two. If the parents decide they didn't want the baby, is it okay to let it die by not hooking it up to a machine?

[slobber]

I don't. Do you?

Maybe inadvertently at some point.

So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?

Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama?   If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. 

I have voted for others who are pro-choice. Is that what you are getting at? I am trying not to engage this from a political standpoint. I am also trying to understand where you are trying to go.

[catzacker]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?

A baby born at 8 months may be perfectly health but need a machine to live for the first week or two. If the parents decide they didn't want the baby, is it okay to let it die by not hooking it up to a machine?

yes.  just as it's okay to decide the same thing for an aging parent.

[HeinBallz]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?

If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved?

[HeinBallz]

I don't. Do you?

Maybe inadvertently at some point.

So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?

Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama?   If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. 

I have voted for others who are pro-choice. Is that what you are getting at? I am trying not to engage this from a political standpoint. I am also trying to understand where you are trying to go.

No, I'm getting at foreign policy.  If you are for war, you are okay with killing innocent people.  If you can sleep with that logic tucked under your pillow, why is abortion any different?  And if it's not political - it's religious - so which is it.  And understand, I'm not so much taking a position in this argument as I am asking difficult questions.

[catzacker]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?

If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved?

it's an irrelevant question.  legally speaking.

[Rage Against the McKee]

yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.

posting the first serious take on the most toxic issue of the past several years was ballsy.

That was dobber, fwiw, and Trim quickly called him a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It takes less balls for Dlew to do something like that because everybody likes him.

[slobber]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

[HeinBallz]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?

If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved?

it's an irrelevant question.  legally speaking.

So wait - Is this a law of society, religion, or government? 

Law of society - Abortion is an individual choice and not open to public discussion.
Law of religion - Abortion is open to interpretation of when life is/isn't created and not open to discussion outside of the church.
Law of Government - Abortion is illegal based off of protection of the child's civil liberties, (but you're also imposing force on the mothers rights to not be pregnant - hence the gray area)

[slobber]

yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.

posting the first serious take on the most toxic issue of the past several years was ballsy.

That was dobber, fwiw, and Trim quickly called him a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It takes less balls for Dlew to do something like that because everybody likes him.

What, everybody doesn't like me!?!
Actually, I only admitted to being pro-life. I think it was Dlew who had the serious take.

[HeinBallz]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

[slobber]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

[Cartierfor3]

Civil rights are for citizens.

This is the argument that got us slavery for the first 90 years or so as a nation.

[Trim]

I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion.  Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.

I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.

Lots of people have weird beliefs.  Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.

*humans that have been birf'd.

I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.

No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.

I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever.  It seems very definable.  A person is a person once they're born.  I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever.  If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.   

What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society. 

[HeinBallz]

What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.

 

[Dugout DickStone]

If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance?  Old people get taken off machines to die.  And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense.  So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable.  And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?

If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved unprovided for, uneducated?

added a few.

[Dugout DickStone]

I don't. Do you?

Maybe inadvertently at some point.

So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?

Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama?   If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. 

I have voted for others who are pro-choice. Is that what you are getting at? I am trying not to engage this from a political standpoint. I am also trying to understand where you are trying to go.

No, I'm getting at foreign policy.  If you are for war, you are okay with killing innocent people.  If you can sleep with that logic tucked under your pillow, why is abortion any different?  And if it's not political - it's religious - so which is it.  And understand, I'm not so much taking a position in this argument as I am asking difficult questions.

And not to get too far afield but if you are not donating every extra penny you have to hunger and disease relief in developing countries, or even our own country, (foregoing EMAW games, vacations, desserts, new cars, cable t.v., new clothes, children's toys) you are not really dedicated to saving innocent life.  There are millions of innocent babies who starve to death (a truly awful and painful death) while we in America spend millions trying to sway the Government to tell a 10 year old rape victim she must have that baby or else.

[nicname]

I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion.  Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.

I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.

Lots of people have weird beliefs.  Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.

*humans that have been birf'd.

I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.

No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.

I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever.  It seems very definable.  A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever.  If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.   

What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.

This is an analogy,right?

[HeinBallz]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war.  People write these off as necessary for the campaign.  Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target.  Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.

If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

[Trim]

I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion.  Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.

I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.

Lots of people have weird beliefs.  Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.

*humans that have been birf'd.

I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.

No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.

I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever.  It seems very definable.  A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever.  If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.   

What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.

This is an analogy,right?

I don't think so.

[slobber]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war.  People write these off as necessary for the campaign.  Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target.  Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.

If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?

[nicname]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war.  People write these off as necessary for the campaign.  Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target.  Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.

If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

One could make the distinction that abortion is intentionally ending a life while war casualties are unintentional consequences of war.  I would tread lightly with that distinction though, because I would say that if you go to war you are making a conscious decision knowing full well that innocent casualties are a given. 

For the record I'm not a big war guy either, nor to I support the death penalty.  Basically, I can't justify going to war other than our own country being attacked, or in rarer cases a country being attacked that A) cannot defend itself and B) we deem the attack being unprovoked or without good reason. You could argue that it would be fine to defend a country that affords us certain benefits (resources, etc.) but that is itself a questionable moral practice, which is why I would prefer not to get involved in other countries wars at all.    <<---- super off-topic