![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - December 28 2003 : 09:14:28 AM
|
We should definitely have law, BUT, I would hate to see what would happen to some of these women if there were no abortion clinics. I would hate to see what would happen to some of the unwanted children if there were no abortion clinics. Rich, I would rather that a child never come into this world, if that child is going to be unwanted and abused by his or her parents. Can you think of going through a lifetime of neglect and abuse because your mother got pregnant and HAD to have you. The parents would always think of the child as a burden. Sure, they could give the child up for adoption to a very loving couple that couldn't have children, and in a perfect world, that would be what would happen. Not every child is as lucky as your children or my child to have parents that wanted them and love them more than life itself. Some children wish that they were never born, because of the abuse that they have to endure from parents that should love them!!! Some women get pregnant through rape. Can you imagine what kind of life the child would have if the mother was forced to have the child that was conceived, not out of love, but out of a very ugly and violent act against her. It isn't fair for the woman, because she never asked to be raped, and it isn't fair for the child. The poor child would have a lifetime of resentment from his or her mother. If my sister got pregnant, and there was something medically wrong, which would put her life at risk, I would hope that it wouldn't be illegal for the doctor to perform an abortion. Now, I absolutely abhor women who use abortion as birth control. I don't condone that. It should be illegal in that case. Abortion is murder. I'm not disputing that, but in some cases, murder is also legal. If someone comes into your house and threatens you or your family's life, it is legal to take that person's life. No one ever condemns a man for protecting his family. Why should it be illegal for a woman to protect her own life if it was medically necessary? I know that this doesn't happen very often, but it does happen!!! Should the woman die because abortion is illegal? Should a woman have to have a child because a man forced himself on her and it is illegal to have an abortion? My answer is NO to both of these questions. Should it be illegal for a woman to have an abortion as birth control? A very resounding YES to that question. I think that abortion clinics should only be able to perform abortions in life threatening cases or in a case where it is proven that the woman was raped. That may not be fair to the women that are raped and can't prove it, but then you would have women that got pregnant accidentally telling the doctor that she was raped, just to have an abortion. What I am saying is that I support President Bush's position on abortion.
"Abortion: Supports abortion only in cases of rape, incest or when a woman's life is in jeopardy from pregnancy."
This is exactly the way that I feel, but I do understand and respect your opinion on this very delicate issue.
Kay
|
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
report to moderator  |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 28 2003 : 7:38:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
You have to legislate against immorality.
But ... one person's idea of immorality isn't the same as another's. As I've said, I'm pretty liberal, but I have a very close, very conservative, very religious friend who tries to live her life following the Bible. She believes homosexuality is immoral (I don't). I'm het (and not trying to open another can of worms, just using an example  ), but firmly believe that if two people love each other, no one should say sorry, you can't be together because you're the same sex. They should also have the right to marry and benefit the way a man and woman would in a marriage.
... Should we make homosexuality illegal too?
|
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 12:28:04 PM
|
Uh-oh Daire!!! I think that I am going to pass on this topic. I'm already in the hot seat over the abortion issue!!!
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 29 2003 : 12:38:37 PM
|
| "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 02:26:47 AM
|
Thirty years past Roe v Wade and still it is hard to find discussions not saturated with tiresome misinformation or riddled with hysterical hypotheses that propose child-slaughter to be a standard of benevolent normalcy within an allegedly free society, and that such a practice should somehow be viewed as necessary, productive, compassionate, or civilized. How did we ever come to the point when women not only cooperate with the intentional destruction of their own children, but proclaim it their emancipating right to do so? If we do away with the whitewash, semantics, slogans, and misnomers what are we really talking about? Child killing. Infanticide. That this barbaric practice is discussed openly as a ‘right’ or a ‘solution’ devalues all - every one among us, cuts at the heart of human dignity, and reveals how far we, meaning western civilization, have fallen. One of the great pitfalls of modernism is unbridled democracy; one of the great pitfalls of democracy is the pragmatic destruction of democratic ideals just to preserve democratic ideals. ‘Tis a pity we’ve become so intoxicated with our narcissis self-righteousness we can’t even hear our own death tolls. State sanctioned abortion epitomizes our fatal folly in the most graphic manner, and the non-western world reads it loud and clear ... we’re dying.
Better we stop tiptoeing around this "issue" and speak plainly; cease using sound bites and slogans and let's see where that gets us. Be either squarely for or squarely against tolerated/sanctioned abortion without qualifications or 'hard' cases. It's all or nothing; either it's wrong or it's right. Either it's murder of innocents or it's not. If it's okay at 3 months of age it ought to be okay at nine months. If it's abhorrent and intolerable at nine months of age it is equally so at 2 months. The only difference is in the eye of the beholder, after all, since it gets harder to swallow as the child gets bigger. Honest discussion is bound to hurt, offend, anger, or scandalize - that's the nature of the beast, so to speak, and it can't be avoided for sentimental considerations. As always, the devil's in the details.
Read at your own discretion ...
1) There is no such thing as "safe, legal abortions." More than 50% of those assaulted by the violence of abortion DIE. First among this group are the very young - normally referred to as children, infants, babies, unborn, etc. by civilized people - who suffer a death rate of nearly 100%. The percentage is not quite 100 since some abortions do "fail" resulting in the unintended side effect known as survival. (Maimed infants; e.g. 'red babies' - burned from saline injections, or 'disfigured babies' - limbs successfully cut off from a D & C but child not completely pulverized.) If you'd hate to see what MIGHT happen to these "unwanted" children if there were NO abortion clinics you might first venture to see what DOES happen to these "unwanted" children because there ARE abortion clinics. And to add insult to injury, there are no anesthetics or pain-numbing drugs administered to the child prior to his/her violent death; apparently the unconvicted innocents are to receive NO mercy. The remaining group among the fatalities are the hundreds and hundreds of women, mostly young & mostly poor, who also DIE from "their safe, legal abortions." The most common causes of death for these women are perforated uterus, hemorrhage, shock, infection ... and the percentile numbers have not dropped post Roe v Wade, they've increased. Isn't liberation wonderful?
2) Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion, it decriminalized it; and it was not interpretative (as judicial function requires) it was legislative (a blatant violation of power & duty). With a sweeping disregard for their constitutionally mandated judicial limitations, a handful of woeful men passed a death sentence on to millions of unborn children who were now no longer under the most basic protections of the state (the primary funct |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 10:58:29 AM
|
Lainey,
I would hate to see things go back to the way that they were before abortions were legalized. That is all that I am saying. If you make abortions illegal, the babies will still be just as dead, along with some of the mothers. Below is exactly why I believe that abortions should be legal in SOME cases.
MYTH: During the period when abortion was illegal, abortion was effectively outlawed and the safety of pregnant women was ensured.
FACT: Criminalization of abortions did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year, although, of course, no accurate records could be kept of illegal procedures. What is known is that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.
It should be noted that during this time some women obtained relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors.
This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. Later, the rate of reported abortions began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.
Today, pro-choice advocates who fight for continued access to safe, legal abortion for all women often are motivated by their understanding of the consequences of criminalized abortion. We know from history that whenever abortion has been illegal, women have still attempted and succeeded in ending unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, they have often suffered serious health problems or died in the process. While the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an important turning point in protecting women from unsafe abortion, an understanding of the pre-Roe v. Wade years is critical for making intelligent public policy decisions regarding reproductive health care in the future.
Compiled from:
Anderson, D.E. Newsroom Guide to Abortion and Family Planning, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The Communications Consortium Media Center, 1996.
Reproductive Freedom in the Courts: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy and Reproductive Rights. New York: The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 1995.
A doctor describes her experience at a county hospital before Roe v. Wade:
"[Hospitals] had to have beds all up and down the hallways. They were always full [because of illegal abortions]. They must have had one hundred and forty beds in those wards...in [a twenty four hour] period, you'd get ten to twelve admissions. They walked into the emergency room bleeding. The first thing the doctor down there did was send them for an X-ray to see what was in their belly-to see if there were knitting needles, hooks, catheters up their belly."
A doctor describes a twenty-two year old patient whom he treated for septic shock following an illegal abortion in the 1950's:
"The infection is so overwhelming, the bacteria produce toxins that lead to a collapse of the cardiovascular system...One of the tragedies of this septic shock is that people remain lucid until the end, and she was holding my hand, and saying, 'Doctor, help me, I'm dying.' And I knew she was, and I knew there was not a blessed other thing we could do for her...I have been haunted by that girl ever since."
|
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 11:40:28 AM
|
I also wanted to comment on the "memory loss" of rape victims. I don't know if you know of anyone that has been raped, but I have a friend that was raped. It was called "date rape", but it was rape all the same. She remembers every detail and it wasn't pleasant. I think that she wishes that she could "forget" the rape, but it will always be with her. Luckily, she didn't get pregnant, but that was probably because she wasn't fertile at that time of the month, not because her body "shut down." I am sure that there are many women at rape crisis centers that would tell you that their body didn't shut down and they have no memory loss!!!
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 12:48:48 PM
|
quote:
That is all that I am saying
No, Kay, all you are saying is confusion of the issues & changing the case citations as needed is adequate justification for infanticide. On the one hand you cite potential child abuse as a noble cause for deliberate child deaths, on the other hand you cite the horrific consequences of abortion for women as a noble cause for the continued horrific consequences of abortion for women. Again - that's the nature of the beast; It is never safe & it isn't legal. Nothing anyone says or does can ever change the reality of abortion - not for women, not for infants, not for society.
You then pasted excerpts pertaining to the damage done to women (which is already one of my points so there's no counter point here) though you unfortunately chose The Center For Reproductive Law And Policy as your source. Problem there is the good Center is one of the many profiteer organizations I intended to discuss (I assume everyone does understand that abortion is BIG business) & has a self-interested knack for putting out transparent misinformation regarding abortion & related topics. Incidentally, that annual 1.2 million cited is the number of abortions performed annually SINCE Roe v Wade, not prior. The Center must have made an honest accounting mistake on that one. The young woman spoken of at the end of your post can be any one of thousands of young women who have suffered the very same fate at any number of allegedly legal, safe abortion clinics. Women ARE dying from this barbarism - legal or not, & it's absurd to believe that what is *done anyway* ought to be legalized and aided. There's no logic in that thinking. It's SO Brave New World. We could choose lunacy on the one hand, or insanity on the other.
I don't see how this information supports your position of "some cases." The descriptions of death & suffering within your post don't address the circumstances of conception or pregnancy or how loved or unloved a child is or any other absurd justification for infanticide. You've merely underscored one of my statements. Abortion is a horrific, violent, barbaric travesty no matter how you package it.
Regarding rape; I'm not concerned with memory loss in this discussion & I'll pass on the invite for personal rape tales. It was an example of what does often happen to a victim as a result of trauma (does Jessica Lynch ring a bell?). Some remember & some do not. That's not the point. The point is that rape is cited as one of the preeminent justifications for infanticide even though it hardly plays a role. No, it is not accurate to presume infertility as the explanation for low pregnancy rates among rape victims. The body's reaction to trauma is very real.
quote:
I am sure that there are many women at rape crisis centers that would tell you that their body didn't shut down and they have no memory loss!!!
How many are pregnant?
The reason we see 1.2 million abortions in the United States annually is because we've become a people of Huxley's Utopia. It's a convenience problem. "No leisure from pleasure!" "O, Brave World with such people in it!"
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 1:30:20 PM
|
Lainey,
You are right. The information that I posted didn't have anything to do with the "some cases" that I spoke of earlier. That was a mistake on my part. It actually refers to one of my earlier posts. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will only cause more deaths. Women will always have abortions. Whether you consider them morally right or wrong, they are legal.
It will be left up to the woman that has the abortion to consider the morality of what she is doing.
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 1:41:46 PM
|
| OK, Lainey - quit your *****-footing around! What do you really think about the issue!?! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 1:43:51 PM
|
| Nice! Edited by my own creation!!! Is there no justice in this World!? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Carter
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 28 2003
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 4:40:04 PM
|
I am getting quite tired of the "people are going to do it anyway" argument regardless of the topic at hand.  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 30 2003 : 4:56:24 PM
|
Yes......the "people are going to do it anyway" logic certainly had no import or affect regarding prohibition, eh?
I am a FIRM believer that if the subject is one that has such an obvious public and legal pendulum swing.......back and forth, legislate and re-legislate, can do it, can't do it......it's one Gov needs to keep it's nose out of and one which is going to trample on somebody's rights no matter which way it's been legislated.
Let's face it - this whole topic has such polarity because often it is religiously driven on the pro-lifer side, and involves telling some woman what she MUST do with her body and internal functions on the "right to choose" side. Abortions have been going on since mankind has been around. Some over-populated nations have MANDATED abortions and limits on numbers of children. Always, it's the poorest nations and those who least can support the population who have the most babies. Where's the humanity in THAT I ask? And, here at home, it's also the poorest and least able to support the children who would be victims of a total ban.
Roe Vs. Wade didn't legalize abortion - as somebody correctly said - it was a decision mainly saying Gov should KEEP THEIR NOSE OUT OF IT. I agree.
When an "opinion" goes to telling somebody else what to do with their personal health and their own body or they are a criminal - it's just plain wrong....particularly when it is so obviously driven by religion as this case is. My opinion. Isn't this country polarized and split enough that we have to dig up old decisions, revisit them, and split the country even more? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 6:07:10 PM
|
I agree with you wholeheartedly Bill, so I won't say any more on this subject.
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 6:58:57 PM
|
Disagree completely Bill. My feeling on this subject is not driven by religious beliefs at all. Well, maybe only as far as the 10 Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." It is about murdering innocents. Period. It's not a woman problem. It's a baby problem. The child has no say in the matter - it's just killed. Any society condoning that is spitting in the face of God. That's not "religion," but a belief in the creator and his creations. All of mankind's other sins have been around forever, as well. So?
This is something I cannot fathom - how folks can look the other way when something this heinous is going on right under their noses. Babies, innocent babies, slaughtered. Their rights aren't trampled ... they are taken away ... forever. The most basic right of all ... life ... snuffed out. How can anyone be comfortable with that?
That's my last word on this topic, as well. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 7:29:05 PM
|
| I should add, that the reason it'll be my last word is simply as a acid reducing measure - I've formulated this viewpoint over the years ... going from pro-abortion - citing the very same reasons I've seen cited here - to the stance I now hold. It is a deeply thought out belief, based on morality, logic, and personal experience. None of you can change my mind & I probably can't change any of yours. So, we'll frolic to & fro & I'll get an acid stomach - maybe you will, too - and really, who needs that? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 30 2003 : 11:13:45 PM
|
| Ah yes,the old worn out saying:"You can't tell me what to do with my body."The problem is that it's not your body but the body of another person.This is not a tonsil or appendix that is being cut out but a real live human being that has every right to life like us.I think I heard something one time that goes like everyone is CREATED equal and has the RIGHT to LIFE,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.I guess only some people have that right and the others,oh well,I guess they just get cut out. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 31 2003 : 04:47:24 AM
|
Kay,
You're not thinking through what you're saying. The facts don't support your statements. There are more deaths annually since 1973 because of Roe v Wade's decriminalization. It's not saving lives, it's sucking them away. Society isn't doing anybody any favors by tolerating, let alone supporting child-killing. SOME women will continue to abort regardless of the law, yes. And some men will continue to kill, steal, assault, and terrorize. That's not a compelling argument for government to cease its primary function of defending the lives of all, especially those most vulnerable to the whims of inconvenience or those most endangered by elitist distaste for imperfections and 'grade B' gene stock. We're not cows, we're people. Humanity must always strive, even in the face of despair and destruction, to discover and preserve the sanctity & beauty of every person, of individualism, & of life itself. Abortion is destructive of such virtues and values and inevitably produces the opposite effect - meaningless moments, purposeless lives. If we don't soon wake up to this fact & start heeding the warnings of innumerable visionaries, critics, &, yes, moralists of the 20th century we're doomed to nothing more than expendable, conditioned cogs in the wheel - slaves to the state & slaves to conformity, consumption, & convenience. We're already well on our way. The successful conditioning is evidenced in the regurgitated 'right thinking' as people amazingly continue to defend the indefensible.
As for moral considerations; it's not a matter of opinion. Just as there is absolute truth, so there is absolute morality. Refusal to recognize or respect this fundamental principle of human life does nothing to diminish or erase its veracity; it only diminishes the virtue of the soul that rejects it.
quote:
It will be left up to the woman that has the abortion to consider the morality of what she is doing.
That is not for them to decide. All they have to decide is what to do with the life that is given.
Turning back to literature to illustrate a point;
In a recent interview, history professor & author, Bradley Birzer (J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-earth) is commenting upon Tolkien's Middle Earth mythology, tradition of timeless truths, & Christian humanism. The mythology of LOTR is stunningly rich in virtues & incredibly beautiful on many levels, not least of which is its essential message that there is always, always hope. One of the great wisdoms offered by the prophetic Gandalf in LOTR deals with each individual person's value & purpose & the importance of understanding that. The following excerpt (zenit.org)sums it up nicely & goes to the heart of this thread;
Birzer: Christian humanism argues for a continuity of traditions: the Greek into the Roman, the Jewish into the Christian, and the synthesis of all in the Middle Ages. A true Christian humanist would not only understand Scripture and Tradition, but he would also understand the "greats" of Western civilization: Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.
Christian humanism has often arisen as a strong force during some of the most tumultuous times of the Church: during the Renaissance and Reformation as well as during the 20th century rise of the ideologies of the Right and Left. Tolkien felt no kinship with the 20th century and its terror regimes, mass genocides and overwhelming, conformist technologies and industries.
Tolkien, an Augustinian Christian humanist, believed in the sanctity and individuality of all life. Each person, as best expressed in Gandalf's conversation with Frodo regarding Gollum, is born into a certain time and a certain place. He is born for a reason.
As Aristo |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Carter
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 28 2003
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 31 2003 : 09:13:35 AM
|
"Yes......the "people are going to do it anyway" logic certainly had no import or affect regarding prohibition, eh?"
Let's carry your logic forward Bill and use that same tired argument for the legalization of drugs, pedophilia, murder, or whatever small issue or large one. The argument "people are going to do it anyway" is an intellectual cop-out. Convince me using rational well thought out logic, not one size fits all cliches.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Carter
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 28 2003
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - December 31 2003 : 10:08:52 AM
|
Let's take your prohibition example. Instead of saying, "People are going to do it anyway so might as well make it legal", one could argue the economics of repealing prohibition. One could argue whether taking a drink was really immmoral. One could argue about whether the state had the authority to ban alcohol, etc.
Reminds of the argument that kids will have sex anyway and thus parents felt better if they let them "frolic" in their own bedrooms instead of out in a car somewhere. Sheesh!
I also cringe when I hear a similar argument which goes like this: "Another country has made such and such legal therefore we should too." So freakin what? Reminds me when I tell my kids "no" and they argue, "All the other kids get to do it!"
Our society will be ultimately judged by the choices we make. Let's not make them based on "people are going to do it anyway".
Boy, politics make for strange bedfellows.
That rock is looking awfully cozy right now. Good bye cruel world! LOL |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 31 2003 : 11:45:21 AM
|
Firstly, it IS religiously driven in many, many cases. To say otherwise is to obfuscate.
Secondly, this is another issue wherein two large factions of the country are split, it's a decision already made by the high court, and a total ban WOULD trample on the perceived rights of a large segment of the population and thereby be an unpopular law with that large - nearly half - of the population. Not only unpopular, but criminalize them. We seem to be wanting to do a lot of that sort of legislating these days.
Half the country are not pedophiles. Half the country, I would hope, are not illegal drug users or illegal gamblers.
Thirdly, a total ban leads to other things. What to do with the mandated unwanted children? Take them from the mothers? They have rights. Leave them abused and unattended? Babies have rights. Put them up for adoption? True, many folks would be willing to adopt and are on long waiting lists. They are willing to pay huge bucks if necessary. So we trade in baby flesh for the highest bidder? So much better eh? Mandate to a woman what she has to do with her body, force her to deliver once conceived, and then sell it off on the market when she is judged "unfit or unwilling". Nice.
Half the country is opposed. Half the country is for. Which half tells the other half they have been again ignored and MUST do what the other half says? I personally don't care which way it goes beyond the anger at the ever increasing trend of one segment of the society to impose it's personal opinion and personal will on the unwilling nearly as large other segment of the society due to briefly and oportunistically having a few more votes at the moment. It's wrong, it's what is clearly meant by the sheep and wolf vote concerning Democracy. Government should stay the heck out of it.
It's a dangerous trend for this country that we have come to the point where we salivate when having a temporary and slight majority so we can FORCE AND IMPOSE our will on others through the "vote".
It's that trend more than a single issue that upsets me and worries me.
It's useless to argue. Both sides are polarized and neither side will see any logic in the other's. Imposing one on the other is bound to bring discontent. Imposing enough of one's opinion on others is bound to bring revolution or civil war eventually.....or a total breakdown in respect for law and authority when it can so evidently change with the winds and with the popular vote.
But hey, I'm a doomsayer. Argue on. I don't post in hopes of changing anybody's mind. Impossible to do. Nobody is listening much, merely eager to legislate their opinions - and their values- on others these days.
Have at it folks. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 31 2003 : 12:04:17 PM
|
Before anybody says I exaggerate, think about this. Fifty years ago we were a society VERY reluctant to let Government into any part of our lives. Fifty years ago we were reluctant to allow laws to be made telling somebody else what to do, as we perceived next law could be one telling US what to do.
Now, we are positively SCREAMING for Government to make laws interfering in our personal life, every facet of it, and in fact TALK ABOUT REVISING THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF to enable us to FURTHER impose our will and opinions on others through Government and opinionated, personally driven laws. The two parties are more split as to values and agenda than ever before and EMPHASIZE that split rather than work for the middle ground where MOST citizens convictions are to be found. It's a contest to get those few majority votes by one side so the other can IMPOSE it's agenda on others. We talk of putting right wing or left wing judges into positions so they can aid us in imposing our will on others through judicial activism, instead of looking for judges who have even handed, unbiased and fair rulings consistently on their resume and who hold the existing Constitution as absolute.
We are a society about to implode. My opinion. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 31 2003 : 12:19:54 PM
|
quote:
Half the country is opposed. Half the country is for. Which half tells the other half they have been again ignored and MUST do what the other half says?
The half that speaks for justice, individualism, dignity, & humanity - of course.
Thank Random I am not a doomsayer.
(That's for my dear, respected, would-be nemesis, Scott B. Didn't ya even miss me, Scott?)  |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 31 2003 : 1:59:16 PM
|
"The half that speaks for justice, individualism, dignity, & humanity - of course"
Ah! Then you are on the wrong side.
Where is the justice in mandating to a woman what she does with HER body, HER life, HER health, HER womb according to YOUR ideas and opinions.
Where is the individualism when you would have Government take over all those decisions for her?
Where is the dignity when you would make her a criminal, castigate her, demean her, invade her privacy and her right to make such decisions for herself else suffer fine and even imprisonment? Where is the dignity in forcing her to go to some bumbling first year med student, drunken doctor, or ram a coat hanger up inside herself and do it in secret? Where is the dignity for the child born of such mandate?
And where is the humanity for those children born into a life of abject poverty, or into crack houses, or into a childhood raised by a child mother, or into being snatched from mothers and rammed into orphanages or put on the block for sale and distribution for adoption? What of all the kids who are NOT adopted? Or who are born defective? Society carries that burden? Raise them from day one with them knowing they were mandated and then abandoned and are unwanted? Victims of a system unprepared and unwilling to care for them? Possibly with mental or physical defects? Sounds like a recipe for more disgruntled youths growing up to be criminals to me. Like we don't have enough unfounded, disgruntled, poverty stricken youth running around already. And who would suffer most? The lowest income, the most poverty stricken, the least able to provide for a child thus mandated and most resentful for that edict, those wretched people with health issues already, with addictions to drugs and alcohol, and who have little hope of providing a healthy and loving home to ONE child, let alone every child that might be conceived.
For, in your world, not only would you have abortion made illegal, you would advocate NO contraception and certainly NOT the "day after" pill.
I won't even get into how that agenda fits perfectly into some religious agendas and edicts.
However, like I said, it's useless to argue these points anymore. Too much polarity, nobody wants to find a common ground merely seek enough votes to mandate on others their particular values, beliefs and lifestyles even if it is NOT that of a vast majority of others.
I'll just wait for the implosion. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 31 2003 : 2:21:09 PM
|
| Said simply: When laws are made which are unsupported and opposed by a large segment of society, you foster contempt for law itself and resentment - even hostility - toward the government which would impose that law upon it's unwilling population. Period. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.39 seconds |
 |
|
Abortion Debate in the Presidential Race
