Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I am fighting for the right of every woman to have the freedom to exercise ownership over her body and her life, the same way that men do.
I am fighting for the right of every woman to have free access to truly "foolproof" contraception, including morning-after options.
If we ever get those first two things accomplished, then I would be willing to see abortion legislated away because I think the need would go away.
I cannot personally imagine circumstances under which I would choose to have an abortion, even should my "foolproof", physician-supplied, expensive contraception fail.
But I have never been raped by anyone. I have never been a victim of incest. I have never had to argue with a partner over whether or not a condom "makes it feel less good" and then have to deal with the consequences when he makes it clear my opinion didn't really matter anyway.
It isn't always about gettin' our jollies and then suffering the consequences, and for you to frame it that way, for pretty much this whole discussion, is dishonest.
I find that killers deserve scorn.
That's fine. I have never killed anyone in my life, though, so I'm not sure what that has to do with me.
Just out of curiosity, would you kill to protect your loved ones from mortal harm? I really am curious.
Just a minor quibble.
A zygote/embryo/fetus is not *yet* a baby.
Even if there were no effort ever made to abort a pregnancy, the decision *not* to abort is no guarantee that a child will be born. (Especially here in the US, where our infant mortality runs a bit higher than the average in modern industrialized countries.)
So in any given case, you can't know that an abortion prevented the birth of a child. There may have been any number of accidents of nature or fate that result in the loss of that child regardless of the decisions of the mother.
From a purely objective perspective, an abortion is not "murder of a child," as you vigorously assert. It is destruction (or murder) of a *potential* child.
Then again, so is menstruation or male masturbation. (I'm not sure precisely how that speaks to your argument, but it's a fact.)
That was a nice question that I must've missed your answer to before, I'm going to remember it.
Trapped in a burning building is a 3-yr old child and a tray of 10 blastocysts. Would you, in good conscience, leave those 10 blastocysts to die while saving the child?
Could you square causing the deaths of ten children (in your mind) vs the death of one? Or vice-versa?
In your opinion, would your decision there be *rational* or *emotional*?
Come now, give the Right credit. Sheepherders know their sheep. Baaaaad idea, isn't it?
Heru-ur
I am fighting for the right of every woman to have the freedom to exercise ownership over her body and her life, the same way that men do.
I am fighting for the right of every woman to have free access to truly "foolproof" contraception, including morning-after options.
If we ever get those first two things accomplished, then I would be willing to see abortion legislated away because I think the need would go away.
I am not really on board for any federal law; for or against, even as I see the act as killing of the most gruesome kind. I also do not think the act will ever go away since most think it has always been with us. We are unique only in that we legalize it and have professionals do the job. I hope that women someday agree that killing the baby is morally wrong to a degree that surpasses most other wrong acts. It is ignorance most complete.
I am all for contraception. I am all for boys and girls using the stuff.
I cannot personally imagine circumstances under which I would choose to have an abortion, even should my "foolproof", physician-supplied, expensive contraception fail.
But I have never been raped by anyone. I have never been a victim of incest. I have never had to argue with a partner over whether or not a condom "makes it feel less good" and then have to deal with the consequences when he makes it clear my opinion didn't really matter anyway.
It isn't always about gettin' our jollies and then suffering the consequences, and for you to frame it that way, for pretty much this whole discussion, is dishonest.
It is not dishonest. Sex is the choice, you are not forced to do it unless raped and that is a different matter. The choice comes before conception. The choice comes before the act. You have the choice to awaken to the reality of existence or be tied to the lusts of this earth and kill others to satisfy your cravings.
With sex there is always three people; the girl, the guy, and the baby that might come. We need to always think of the little innocent one, the ever possible third one.
I find that killers deserve scorn.
That's fine. I have never killed anyone in my life, though, so I'm not sure what that has to do with me.
Just out of curiosity, would you kill to protect your loved ones from mortal harm? I really am curious.
-- Pedinska
The quote was intended for those who do kill, or those who enable killing. Just as the bomb maker is as guilty as the pilot who drops the bombs on women and children.
Would I defend my loved ones? Why yes, even with my life gladly.
Would I kill another to do same? Ah, that is much harder to answer, and I am not sure I really know. After all, once one understands the reality of our existence then death (as you speak of it) is not of much account. To save my wife so that she might have more time to reach enlightenment would temp me sorely. I most surely would take her place and die for her.
What would I do?
I really do not know today. To say otherwise would really be telling an untruth; not the stuff your side claims is false, only because you fail to see the truth that I see, but a real untruth.
Perhaps my animal nature would take over and I would do the act before I even knew what was happening. I am not without manifold failings.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
