|
On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents.
What about a scientific line?
|
On June 30 2013 01:06 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? Of course not. 1 day before birth is viable. Answer the question, dude. If you think there should be miscarriage trials then you fully agree with me. Many people have not considered the idea of scrutinizing miscarriages when they are pro-life. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. If you have no problem with scrutinizing miscarriages, then fine. SO why not? Because if make this illegal then there would be TRIALS dude. And then again misscarriages happen all the time, and most likely there shouldnt be a trial if there is not real way of having blantant evidence that someone had an abortion. Then the law would just make sure you cannot go to a doctor and have an abortion since the doctor will risk his license.
WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME WHEN YOU AGREE WITH ME???? Jesus fucking christ, dude.
Edit: I was only trying to establish that Abortions are Illegal => Miscarriage Trials. That's all. That's it. Most people find the idea of a miscarriage trial to be absolutely abhorrent, and far more real than some theoretical women getting an abortion, because miscarriages could easily happen to anybody.
Okay, now that you understand that you need to have miscarriage trials, maybe you should read up on miscarriage trials and see what has actually happened in the real world.
(and unlicensed doctors can perform abortions too, you know)
|
On June 30 2013 01:10 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents. What about a scientific line?
the scientific line would have to ignore the morality of the situation, so would only be interested in the practical side of it: health and cost. If you only put these two categories, for sure third trimester abortions should be 100% illegal, and for a second trimester abortion would have to be handled case by case with the doctor.
|
On June 30 2013 01:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:06 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? Of course not. 1 day before birth is viable. Answer the question, dude. If you think there should be miscarriage trials then you fully agree with me. Many people have not considered the idea of scrutinizing miscarriages when they are pro-life. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. If you have no problem with scrutinizing miscarriages, then fine. SO why not? Because if make this illegal then there would be TRIALS dude. And then again misscarriages happen all the time, and most likely there shouldnt be a trial if there is not real way of having blantant evidence that someone had an abortion. Then the law would just make sure you cannot go to a doctor and have an abortion since the doctor will risk his license. WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME WHEN YOU AGREE WITH ME???? Jesus fucking christ, dude. Edit: I was only trying to establish that Abortions are Illegal => Miscarriage Trials. That's all. That's it. Most people find the idea of a miscarriage trial to be absolutely abhorrent, and far more real than some theoretical women getting an abortion, because miscarriages could easily happen to anybody. Okay, now that you understand that you need to have miscarriage trials, maybe you should read up on miscarriage trials and see what has actually happened in the real world. (and unlicensed doctors can perform abortions too, you know)
This is just one more pragmatic reason for allowing abortion. Women with coathangers can perform abortion. Of course, there's a serious risk to them damaging their insides while doing so.
Legal abortion means women don't resort to such risky measures.
|
On June 30 2013 01:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:06 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? Of course not. 1 day before birth is viable. Answer the question, dude. If you think there should be miscarriage trials then you fully agree with me. Many people have not considered the idea of scrutinizing miscarriages when they are pro-life. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. If you have no problem with scrutinizing miscarriages, then fine. SO why not? Because if make this illegal then there would be TRIALS dude. And then again misscarriages happen all the time, and most likely there shouldnt be a trial if there is not real way of having blantant evidence that someone had an abortion. Then the law would just make sure you cannot go to a doctor and have an abortion since the doctor will risk his license. WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME WHEN YOU AGREE WITH ME???? Jesus fucking christ, dude. Okay, now that you understand that you need to have miscarriage trials, maybe you should read up on miscarriage trials and see what has actually happened in the real world.
If women that had a normal miscarriage (meaning that someone brings someone to court with no real evidence at all) then it is completly wrong and then something with the system is wrong.
But lets say somebody brings up evidence that a doctor is doing illegal abortions after a certain date lets say week 30 where the women had no reasons other than not wanting the child. Then there should be trials.
And just because i think your position is viable doesnt mean i agree with you. I dont agree on the way you argue, that was my intention. Since i cannot decide on this topic because i think it is very COMPLEX. You on the other hand think it is easy as cake and everyone that disagrees is a bad person. And i m not debating the "pro-life" or "pro choice" point of view.
|
On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans?
On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons.
Ah, thank you Godwin.
Humanity recognizes that both slavery and the Holocaust were horrible transgression of human rights. Science/biology doesn't tell us when one becomes a human being (and even more so a person), unless you equate "human being" to "human life form" - and many people would argue that there's a difference between the two. Humanity has intersubjectively agreed human rights apply regardless of race, gender, class, ethnicity, etc. (there are of course exceptions, such as types of racists), but there is no such agreement for what exists before birth and in particular at the earliest stages for which you still argue we are confronted with a human being, for example in the case of zygotes (and, by the way, a single zygote can lead to the birth of 0 to several separate babies, so your position implies human beings are capable of dividing themselves into several human beings).
On June 29 2013 23:34 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought. There may be thought behind the decision whether you want to have a child at the time, but not necessarily behind getting an abortion at an early stage in case of an unplanned pregnancy. Those two are not the same thing. Most people don't realistically consider that it might happen to them. There may or may not be thought and consideration behind a decision to get an abortion if you grew up and live in a society where killing a fetus is not considered a big deal, at least not because it's an act of killing another human being, but rather because of some potential risk associated with the procedure. This may not be the case in the US, but it is the case in many countries. Just look at the posts of some of the posters from Denmark. Their attitude is basically: "How is that even a question?! It's a violation of the women's rights. The fetus doesn't have any."
There is thought behind the decision not to want a child, period. As long as a woman decides she does not want a child, you cannot speak of an "abortion on a whim".
On June 29 2013 23:34 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 23:07 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 22:55 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:48 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:34 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah the pro lifers in the last few pages seem to have some odd notions about how much women love having abortions. Getting an abortion is a broad term. It could be fragmenting a fetus 20 weeks into pregnancy or taking a pill that causes a miscarriage... If you don't consider that abortion on a whim, then you haven't been paying attention to what feminists have been saying for the past coule of decades. If you find that so offensive, then I will use the term "abortion on wish" or "abortion with no required reason", if you wish... No, that is precisely not "abortion on a whim". "On a whim" means there is little thought put behind the decision, when there is always considerable thought put behind the decision of having a child or not. Availability of means is not equal to absence of thought. Which is a direct result of the pro-choice lobby getting its way. That might not be the reason behind advocating for legal abortion, but it makes abortions on a whim just as legal as abortions for serious reasons... You equated taking a pill that induces a miscarriage to "abortion on a whim". I pointed out why that was completely false. Also, I'd like to see some evidence behind your claim of the existence - and multiplicity - of "abortions on a whim". You did not point out anything. Taking that pill does result in killing a fertilized egg, a new human being. You may consider that human being somehow inferior and underserving of human rights, but that doesn't change that fact...
Yes I did, and I'm unsure how the content of this post is supposed to be related to the specific issue we were addressing, namely whether taking a pill that causes a miscarriage can be equated to "abortion on a whim". I have explained to you why that was false. This latest reply of yours doesn't address in any way my argument.
|
On June 30 2013 01:23 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:11 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 01:06 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials.
Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? Of course not. 1 day before birth is viable. Answer the question, dude. If you think there should be miscarriage trials then you fully agree with me. Many people have not considered the idea of scrutinizing miscarriages when they are pro-life. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. If you have no problem with scrutinizing miscarriages, then fine. SO why not? Because if make this illegal then there would be TRIALS dude. And then again misscarriages happen all the time, and most likely there shouldnt be a trial if there is not real way of having blantant evidence that someone had an abortion. Then the law would just make sure you cannot go to a doctor and have an abortion since the doctor will risk his license. WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME WHEN YOU AGREE WITH ME???? Jesus fucking christ, dude. Okay, now that you understand that you need to have miscarriage trials, maybe you should read up on miscarriage trials and see what has actually happened in the real world. If women that had a normal miscarriage (meaning that someone brings someone to court with no real evidence at all) then it is completly wrong and then something with the system is wrong. But lets say somebody brings up evidence that a doctor is doing illegal abortions after a certain date lets say week 30 where the women had no reasons other than not wanting the child. Then there should be trials. And just because i think your position is viable doesnt mean i agree with you. I dont agree on the way you argue, that was my intention. Since i cannot decide on this topic because i think it is very COMPLEX. You on the other hand think it is easy as cake and everyone that disagrees is a bad person. And i m not debating the "pro-life" or "pro choice" point of view.
Most of the pro-life viewpoint comes from the idea that "this could never happen to me." They basically argue from that point of view. By bringing up the idea of miscarriage trials, this makes that point of view a lot less powerful. The idea that you could be brought to trial for something that was not at all your fault is something that is extraordinarily frightening. You will often get pro-lifers to deny that miscarriage trials are a real thing or that miscarriage trials are necessary.
So I'm not trying to argue that illegal things should not be brought to trial. I'm trying to attack their underlying biases and worldviews so that eventually they can change their mind or at the very least moderate their extreme viewpoints.
|
On June 29 2013 05:46 Jamial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013. The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development. Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc. No, no and no. The only reason pro-life is "rather modern" is because abortion hasn't been around for very long.
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say you haven't read much on the subject...
Sonograms, knowledge etc. doesn't make it more likely to be anti-abortion, since it's not about whether the child is healthy or not in 90%+ of the cases. It's about the mother not wanting the child to be born. It's her body, it's her choice.
Increased knowledge about fetal development and increasing ability to accurately show the fetus itself does have an effect on the argument. Your non-sequitur notwithstanding. Why do you think the pro-life politicians are always trying to legislate sonogram requirements before a woman can have an abortion? Because seeing the fetus will often lead to women thinking twice about aborting the pregnancy.
She chose to HAVE the kid, and I love the kid. I love her dearly.
I don't doubt that you do, but you'll have to forgive me for taking this:
Put me in the same position again, knowing what I know now, and I would still want the child aborted.
As a sign that perhaps your love is not so great as you'd like me to think.
Noone else has any right to a say in the matter.
Under current legislation, you are absolutely correct. That is the entire purpose of the pro-life movement however, is to change those laws and thus change what rights we do or don't have.
If the child can live outside the mother, cut it out, get it over with, it's a person.
I've never understood this particular line of thinking, but I suppose that's because I don't see how drawing rather arbitrary lines to define personhood is a very good idea.
|
On June 30 2013 01:10 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents. What about a scientific line?
What science? Biologically, conception is the most sensible line because that is when the human organism is created.
|
On June 30 2013 05:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:10 nihlon wrote:On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents. What about a scientific line? What science? Biologically, conception is the most sensible line because that is when the human organism is created.
A zygote is an organism, but what makes it human (other than that it can develop into a human being)?
The problem with all these people sayin that abortion kills human beings, is that it is not clearly defined what it means to be a human being. We had this discussion about 30 pages back or so.
|
On June 30 2013 05:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:46 Jamial wrote:On June 29 2013 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013. The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development. Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc. No, no and no. The only reason pro-life is "rather modern" is because abortion hasn't been around for very long. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say you haven't read much on the subject... Show nested quote +Sonograms, knowledge etc. doesn't make it more likely to be anti-abortion, since it's not about whether the child is healthy or not in 90%+ of the cases. It's about the mother not wanting the child to be born. It's her body, it's her choice. Increased knowledge about fetal development and increasing ability to accurately show the fetus itself does have an effect on the argument. Your non-sequitur notwithstanding. Why do you think the pro-life politicians are always trying to legislate sonogram requirements before a woman can have an abortion? Because seeing the fetus will often lead to women thinking twice about aborting the pregnancy. I don't doubt that you do, but you'll have to forgive me for taking this: Show nested quote +Put me in the same position again, knowing what I know now, and I would still want the child aborted. As a sign that perhaps your love is not so great as you'd like me to think. Under current legislation, you are absolutely correct. That is the entire purpose of the pro-life movement however, is to change those laws and thus change what rights we do or don't have. Show nested quote +If the child can live outside the mother, cut it out, get it over with, it's a person. I've never understood this particular line of thinking, but I suppose that's because I don't see how drawing rather arbitrary lines to define personhood is a very good idea.
I don't think forcing women to birth children is a "change what rights we do or don't have" that I support.
I mean, it's bad enough we force animals to breed on cue, I don't want to treat women that way.
|
On June 30 2013 05:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 05:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 01:10 nihlon wrote:On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials.
Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents. What about a scientific line? What science? Biologically, conception is the most sensible line because that is when the human organism is created. A zygote is an organism, but what makes it human (other than that it can develop into a human being)? The problem with all these people sayin that abortion kills human beings, is that it is not clearly defined what it means to be a human being. We had this discussion about 30 pages back or so.
Because in the end its about intent; not the actual act of the killing.
You have cells in your body that, with care, can be molded into a human being. To them, choosing to terminate that process is the act of choosing to prevent the existence of that human being. And, philosophically, I can understand and for the most part agree with said philosophy.
However, it's also a woman's body and I don't believe in controlling women. My disagreeing with their decisions is not a good reason to infringe on their liberty.
But its very dishonest to say that the reason people are pro-life is simply because they see cells in the body and think its a person.
|
On June 30 2013 05:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 05:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 01:10 nihlon wrote:On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials.
Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents. What about a scientific line? What science? Biologically, conception is the most sensible line because that is when the human organism is created. A zygote is an organism, but what makes it human (other than that it can develop into a human being)? The problem with all these people sayin that abortion kills human beings, is that it is not clearly defined what it means to be a human being. We had this discussion about 30 pages back or so.
Hence the problem with any side claiming scientific basis for their argument. "What makes a human being?" is a philosophical question. It can be tied to science; for example:
"A human being is a living human organism."
or
"A human being is a living human organism with skin that is within a particular range of pigmentation."
or
"A human being is a living human organism that meets particular developmental and mental standards."
However all three of those are completely amoral statements by themselves. Logically valid, but without moral (philosophical) back-up, they are just meaningless words strung together. The racist can claim all he wants that the second definition is both scientific and valid, but that doesn't keep it from causing almost violent disgust in most rational people. What makes a human being? That is an entirely personal question with no known answer. I would lean toward the first definition provided, being that it is the most simple and the most in line with my other moral beliefs. The pro-abortionist will probably lean toward the third because that falls more in line with his/her beliefs.
And all that even ignores the idea that certain humans (either mother or fetus) can have their civil rights taken away in certain circumstances. Thus the argument cannot end with simply coming up with an acceptable definition of human being, as the question of whether particular human beings deserve recognition of their particular rights is still up in the air.
|
On June 30 2013 05:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 05:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 29 2013 05:46 Jamial wrote:On June 29 2013 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 29 2013 01:53 SpiffD wrote:
Abortion doesn't need rape or incest to justify it.
I thought this was the year 2013. The pro-life movement is actually rather modern. It developed (ironically) along side scientific development. Basically, the fact that it is the year 2013 makes one all the more likely to be anti-abortion, due to things like better sonograms, more knowledge on the developmental processes of the fetus, etc. No, no and no. The only reason pro-life is "rather modern" is because abortion hasn't been around for very long. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say you haven't read much on the subject... Sonograms, knowledge etc. doesn't make it more likely to be anti-abortion, since it's not about whether the child is healthy or not in 90%+ of the cases. It's about the mother not wanting the child to be born. It's her body, it's her choice. Increased knowledge about fetal development and increasing ability to accurately show the fetus itself does have an effect on the argument. Your non-sequitur notwithstanding. Why do you think the pro-life politicians are always trying to legislate sonogram requirements before a woman can have an abortion? Because seeing the fetus will often lead to women thinking twice about aborting the pregnancy. She chose to HAVE the kid, and I love the kid. I love her dearly. I don't doubt that you do, but you'll have to forgive me for taking this: Put me in the same position again, knowing what I know now, and I would still want the child aborted. As a sign that perhaps your love is not so great as you'd like me to think. Noone else has any right to a say in the matter. Under current legislation, you are absolutely correct. That is the entire purpose of the pro-life movement however, is to change those laws and thus change what rights we do or don't have. If the child can live outside the mother, cut it out, get it over with, it's a person. I've never understood this particular line of thinking, but I suppose that's because I don't see how drawing rather arbitrary lines to define personhood is a very good idea. I don't think forcing women to birth children is a "change what rights we do or don't have" that I support. I mean, it's bad enough we force animals to breed on cue, I don't want to treat women that way.
Well, let's be clear here, no one is suggesting that we take away a woman's right to say no to the breeding.
|
This thread is kinda f*cked, but whatever. The fact that we have 46 pages of nothing but arguments, counterarguments and so on is a good indicator that things can go both ways. But i mean seriousely though. Abortion for the most part is a bad thing. Why so? you may ask, and the answer is simple. Because it denies humans lives. What would have happened if my parents took abortion? I wouldn't have been here. Did you really not want me to exist?? Too bad. Anyways same thing kinda goes for rape. i don't think abortion is ok there either. If the woman does not want her baby then you could just adopt it away to someone who gives a sh*t.
|
Joe Biden said: Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others
That is so wrong on so many levels.
|
On June 30 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +Joe Biden said: Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others
That is so wrong on so many levels.
Why? Sounds pretty good to me.
|
On June 30 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 05:16 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2013 05:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 01:10 nihlon wrote:On June 30 2013 01:07 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:
[quote]
If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL.
If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents. What about a scientific line? What science? Biologically, conception is the most sensible line because that is when the human organism is created. A zygote is an organism, but what makes it human (other than that it can develop into a human being)? The problem with all these people sayin that abortion kills human beings, is that it is not clearly defined what it means to be a human being. We had this discussion about 30 pages back or so. But its very dishonest to say that the reason people are pro-life is simply because they see cells in the body and think its a person.
So what do you mean by dishonest?
|
On June 30 2013 05:47 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Joe Biden said: Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others
That is so wrong on so many levels. Why? Sounds pretty good to me.
According to Catholic doctrine, abortion is both an intrinsic evil, and a mortal sin. Basically, abortion is so evil and heinous in the eyes of God that, committed without repentance, it will result in the damnation of the person who procured it. In fact, procuring an abortion itself is singled out as a cause for automatic excommunication. Thus, it is considered the duty of every Catholic politician to do everything within their power to limit and eventually eliminate abortion. For a politician to recognize and accept the Catholic teaching on abortion (to do otherwise publicly would be heresy, arguably worse) but still support it's legalization is considered to be a grave sin itself, much akin to the actions of Pontius Pilate, who condemned Christ despite knowing his innocence. For Joe Biden to say he refuses to "impose" his belief on others through legislation is, according to the beliefs he espouses, the same thing as a Catholic politician claiming that he refuses to impose upon others his own belief in the evil of lynching blacks. According to Catholic doctrine, they are similar moral statements.
I am of the opinion (shared by many Catholics, including the Bishop in Biden's hometown of Scranton, Penn.) that Biden and other Catholic pro-choice politicians should be denied access to communion and publicly repudiated. I am also of the opinion that any Catholic politician claiming that his pro-choice stance does not run counter to the doctrine of abortion should be publicly excommunicated.
I mean, it's a bit off-topic, but it holds a particular relevance to me, being a devout Catholic myself.
|
On June 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 05:47 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Joe Biden said: Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others
That is so wrong on so many levels. Why? Sounds pretty good to me. According to Catholic doctrine, abortion is both an intrinsic evil, and a mortal sin. Basically, abortion is so evil and heinous in the eyes of God that, committed without repentance, it will result in the damnation of the person who procured it. In fact, procuring an abortion itself is singled out as a cause for automatic excommunication. Thus, it is considered the duty of every Catholic politician to do everything within their power to limit and eventually eliminate abortion. For a politician to recognize and accept the Catholic teaching on abortion (to do otherwise publicly would be heresy, arguably worse) but still support it's legalization is considered to be a grave sin itself, much akin to the actions of Pontius Pilate, who condemned Christ despite knowing his innocence. For Joe Biden to say he refuses to "impose" his belief on others through legislation is, according to the beliefs he espouses, the same thing as a Catholic politician claiming that he refuses to impose upon others his own belief in the evil of lynching blacks. According to Catholic doctrine, they are similar moral statements.I am of the opinion (shared by many Catholics, including the Bishop in Biden's hometown of Scranton, Penn.) that Biden and other Catholic pro-choice politicians should be denied access to communion and publicly repudiated. I am also of the opinion that any Catholic politician claiming that his pro-choice stance does not run counter to the doctrine of abortion should be publicly excommunicated. I mean, it's a bit off-topic, but it holds a particular relevance to me, being a devout Catholic myself.
lol. So it's wrong in the eyes of the church. Well, it's exactly in line with US law and constitution. I'd much rather my politicians stay true to the country then their religion. We don't live in a theocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
