mlb Wrote:It seems to me that you can't come up with a good response to those situations, thus you have to start yelling "straw man". Sorry bud, as others have pointed out, this isn't a good vs bad situation, as obviously there are going to be unintended consequences to everything that you do... hence the reason why, in my opinion, people should have the right to choose for themselves. They can decide what works for them and what doesn't, isn't that a basis on which this country was founded?

In my opinion, the government should only protect the innocent. That means they don't protect you from yourself... if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, fine. If someone wants to gamble away his money, fine.

The only issue in the abortion debate (when debating with myself) is when a fetus becomes a baby... obviously many people believe it is from conception, while others believe not until some point in the pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that you must make your decision within the first trimester, specifically the first 8 weeks. Simple as that...

After reading the bolded part above, I must ask how you could condone abortion in any shape or form. There is nothing more innocent that a baby. It has done nothing wrong.


Also, every one of your arguments that ninerfan has pointed out as a straw man has been rebutted by ninerfan, but you just choose to ignore it.

We have hashed this out before and it all ends the same, you can say straw man, but I disagree. They are all the same. The straw comes in because one person wants to ignore information or give more importance to the information that supports their opinion. In my arguments, innocence, guilt and all the other BS that people use to differentiate abortion from the death penalty does not matter, because in actuality the same thing is happening in both situations.

uhmump95 Wrote:We have hashed this out before and it all ends the same, you can say straw man, but I disagree. They are all the same.

No, they really aren't. We don't exist in a vacuum and you can't argue like we do. Every situation is unique.

Quote:The straw comes in because one person wants to ignore information or give more importance to the information that supports their opinion. In my arguments, innocence, guilt and all the other BS that people use to differentiate abortion from the death penalty does not matter, because in actuality the same thing is happening in both situations.

Wow, you just stated that you're arguing a straw man, you know it and don't care. At least you're honest about it.

GrayBeard Wrote:

mlb Wrote:It seems to me that you can't come up with a good response to those situations, thus you have to start yelling "straw man". Sorry bud, as others have pointed out, this isn't a good vs bad situation, as obviously there are going to be unintended consequences to everything that you do... hence the reason why, in my opinion, people should have the right to choose for themselves. They can decide what works for them and what doesn't, isn't that a basis on which this country was founded?

In my opinion, the government should only protect the innocent. That means they don't protect you from yourself... if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, fine. If someone wants to gamble away his money, fine.

The only issue in the abortion debate (when debating with myself) is when a fetus becomes a baby... obviously many people believe it is from conception, while others believe not until some point in the pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that you must make your decision within the first trimester, specifically the first 8 weeks. Simple as that...

After reading the bolded part above, I must ask how you could condone abortion in any shape or form. There is nothing more innocent that a baby. It has done nothing wrong.


Also, every one of your arguments that ninerfan has pointed out as a straw man has been rebutted by ninerfan, but you just choose to ignore it.

I knew you would bold that and bring it up, hence the reason why I qualified it below that. The discussion is WHEN a fetus becomes a baby. At that point it should be given the full protection of the law, but not until then. That is where I am torn and where I have always been torn.

The bolded part also was in response to a point that ninerfan1 was attempting to make about innocent people dying in car crashes. That is some risk involved with everything you do, thus at some point the government can't protect ourselves from ourselves.

The issue about the justice system is a fine and dandy, but my point is the death penalty, not just going to jail for life. There is the chance that the evidence appears if you just have life in prison, thus allowing you your freedom. Once you are dead you can't do that (obviously). That is why I believe the death penalty should be abolished, you remove any chance of that person getting their freedom if new evidence that proves your innocence appears.

Finally, the point about the mother vs the child. At some point you have to make the decision, that is my point. It appears to me that you value the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother since you said you don't support an abortion in that situation... that is all i was getting at.

mlb Wrote:Finally, the point about the mother vs the child. At some point you have to make the decision, that is my point. It appears to me that you value the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother since you said you don't support an abortion in that situation... that is all i was getting at.

Actually, here's what you said.

Quote:But of course, many pro-life people only care about the unborn fetus' life but not the mother's life... as we have seen today. Personally, I can't support that view...

And I never said that I value the fetus' life over the mother. I said I never "support" abortion. Meaning I'll never be all for it, or fine with it etc.

My wife is 4 months pregnant right now and if she went into labor and the doctor said she could only save my wife by aborting the baby and I had to choose, I would choose my wife. Am I ok with the fact that my child had to be killed, no I'm not. And my decision would have nothing to do with whether the fetus was a baby at that point. To me, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. It would be my choice.

That's why I said if you strictly have abortion for rape/incest or life of the mother the debate shifts dramatically. I'll never support abortion, however in those instances it would have to be accepted, by me at least, as a necessary evil.

mlb Wrote:Finally, the point about the mother vs the child. At some point you have to make the decision, that is my point. It appears to me that you value the unborn fetus' life over that of the mother since you said you don't support an abortion in that situation... that is all i was getting at.

So with that being the case, everyone pregnancy should end in an abortion, because there is always a chance that the pregnancy could end in death for the mother. Now I am not advocating that, but your argument for abortion could push the balance to that extreme.

Another point about this, is that Dr's make mistakes. I have friends who's mothers were told to have an abortion because their life was at risk. Guess what, the mothers in all cases that I know, lived and were just fine. I have a cousin that was told not to have either of her babies because she wouldn't live through the pregnancy. Her kids are now between 5 & 10 and she is enjoying every day with them.

I'm sorry, but I really think you are making points that have no real point when you break it down.

Graybeard - what do you think of the morning after pill? Is that OK? If not, why not?

What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?

Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Graybeard - what do you think of the morning after pill? Is that OK? If not, why not?

What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?

Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?

About the fruitful and multiplying in the Bible...I beleive that was said to Noah, but I could be wrong, after the flood, thus he and his family needed to be some kind of fruitful! I am all for abstinence before marriage, but after marriage abstinence is only to be mutually agreed upon by both husband and wife and only for a time of prayer and focus on the Lord.

I have no problem with Birth Control, but then if the BC fails, I plan to keep the resulting baby.

About the morning after pill, in principle I am against it, but to be quite honest with you, I know very little about it, so my opinion is much less than educated.

Did I answer all your questions?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?

I would say that first, abstinence prevents the possibility of a new life coming to be, abortion kills one that already is. So the two aren't the same. Abortion doesn't deny life, it simply denies it the ability to continue.

Second I would say many people do believe that they should have as many kids as they happen to be blessed with. Nothing wrong with that though I never see it mandated in the bible.

Quote:Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?

It was a command to Adam and Eve or Noah I think, who were tasked to populate the earth. It's not an overall mandate to all followers of God. If it were then God would have had a problem with the fact that Paul was never married. Yet both Jesus and Paul said there was nothing wrong with being single.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:We have hashed this out before and it all ends the same, you can say straw man, but I disagree. They are all the same.

No, they really aren't. We don't exist in a vacuum and you can't argue like we do. Every situation is unique.

Quote:The straw comes in because one person wants to ignore information or give more importance to the information that supports their opinion. In my arguments, innocence, guilt and all the other BS that people use to differentiate abortion from the death penalty does not matter, because in actuality the same thing is happening in both situations.

Wow, you just stated that you're arguing a straw man, you know it and don't care. At least you're honest about it.

I think I am saying that I am removing the straw from my analysis and bringing this discussion down to the basics of the action which is "One human being taking the life of another human being". IMO the straw used to differentiate one action from another when it comes to abortion and the death penalty are irrelevant, it is still the same action.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:My wife is 4 months pregnant right now and if she went into labor and the doctor said she could only save my wife by aborting the baby and I had to choose, I would choose my wife. Am I ok with the fact that my child had to be killed, no I'm not. And my decision would have nothing to do with whether the fetus was a baby at that point. To me, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. It would be my choice.

Actually it would hopefully be you and your wife's choice after much prayer and conversation between the two of you.

uhmump95 Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:My wife is 4 months pregnant right now and if she went into labor and the doctor said she could only save my wife by aborting the baby and I had to choose, I would choose my wife. Am I ok with the fact that my child had to be killed, no I'm not. And my decision would have nothing to do with whether the fetus was a baby at that point. To me, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. It would be my choice.

Actually it would hopefully be you and your wife's choice after much prayer and conversation between the two of you.

Please note the bolded section. It brings with it the idea that my wife isn't capable of making the choice. However if she could, of course it would be thought through with prayer and discussion.

As far as the straw man, you can't remove circumstances or the reality of the situation. What you're saying is you don't care what the situation is, if it's the death penalty, abortion or a guy in my house looking to kill me and my family who I kill in self defense.

A pro-life postion does not = pacifism.

The action is the same, but the reasons/circumstances cannot be ignored. You are free to take such a myopic view if you want, however it's not a logically sound argument to make. But you're going to make it regardless, and I can't convince you that it's not, so we may as well move on as we have reached an impasse.

GrayBeard Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Graybeard - what do you think of the morning after pill? Is that OK? If not, why not?

What about abstinence? Some religions, including some Christian sects, think it is the duty of every married couple to have as many children as God gives them. Does abstinence in this context deny life to potential human beings?

Doesn't the Bible say something about being fruitful and multiplying? If a Christian uses artificial means to thwart pregnancy, is he denying (or trying to deny) God's will?

About the fruitful and multiplying in the Bible...I beleive that was said to Noah, but I could be wrong, after the flood, thus he and his family needed to be some kind of fruitful! I am all for abstinence before marriage, but after marriage abstinence is only to be mutually agreed upon by both husband and wife and only for a time of prayer and focus on the Lord.

I have no problem with Birth Control, but then if the BC fails, I plan to keep the resulting baby.

About the morning after pill, in principle I am against it, but to be quite honest with you, I know very little about it, so my opinion is much less than educated.

Did I answer all your questions?

Yes, thank you.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:What you're saying is you don't care what the situation is, if it's the death penalty, abortion or a guy in my house looking to kill me and my family who I kill in self defense.

No actually those three are not the same. In the case of the abortion and the death penalty, the person getting killed in both situations are ina position where they cannot control the decision of whether they live or day. The unborn baby's life is at the sole mercy of the mother and the death penalty convict's life is at the mercy of the judge or jury. In your self defense situation, the only way it would be the same as the other 2 situations would be if you incapacitated the person you were defending yourself against and then decided to kill that person while they could no longer defend themselves (I personally do not believe this is what you meant when you wrote the original statement, nor do I believe that you would kill an incapicated person willingly in this manner, but I could be wrong).

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The action is the same, but the reasons/circumstances cannot be ignored. You are free to take such a myopic view if you want, however it's not a logically sound argument to make.

Actually my view is the most logical because regardless of the reasons/circumstances, the end action is still the same.

Death peanty, self defense, abortion, are not the same, even though they have the end of a life in common. And in each one there is a variety of circunstances that could apply.


I don't support the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but I think i could support it for terrorists. How about the rest of you, lifers and choicers alike?


As for abortion, I don't feel comfortable drawing that line for others, by passing a law. i am confortable with the morning after pill, I am uncomfortable with late term abortions, but i do not where how to define in a legal manner where the line is crossed.The traditional definitions about viability are changing all the time as medical knowledge increases. Maybe in a couple of decades we will have the technology to save fetuses as young as one month - will we still give the mothers permission to abort at a later time? I have no answer to this question.

Self defense? Biggest gray area there is. I live in the country, and it can take a deputy 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911. So sometimes you have to be responsible for yourself, your family, and your property. A dark country road, especially a long and winding private road, is an attractive location for a variety of activiites, from teenage necking/drinking to rape to drug deals. I have been in situations where action has been needed. It is not a pleasant choice to make. I've never killed anyone, but I have come close. A couple of them, it would have been a mistake on my part. Others, not so much. But I am glad it has never come to that. I knew a guy who killed a burglar. He got off on self-defense - no indictment. In my opinion, it was premeditated murder. Like I said, a gray area.

I think people should have the right to choose for themselves whether abortion is for them or not. Personally, I think it is a digusting practice, and I pity anyone who makes that choice. I'd rather advocate for personal responsibilty. You need to account for your actions. Anyone who uses abortion more than once for social reasons obviously failed to learn something key about they way they live their life.

Death Penalty? Against. Yeah some cognitive dissonance for you guys. I think the death penalty amounts to nothing more than revenge. Sure some of these guys never reform, but the end result is the same. However, some do reform and can be a positive influence from the inside of prisons. They still end up dying there with Life (no parole). Also, the slim number of innocents who end up on death row. Cory Maye for instance was put on death row. Definitly the exception, not the rule, but for anyone supporting the death penalty has to think that killing innocent people is an "acceptable risk" or "collateral damage."

Flame on.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:As for abortion, I don't feel comfortable drawing that line for others, by passing a law. i am confortable with the morning after pill, I am uncomfortable with late term abortions, but i do not where how to define in a legal manner where the line is crossed.The traditional definitions about viability are changing all the time as medical knowledge increases. Maybe in a couple of decades we will have the technology to save fetuses as young as one month - will we still give the mothers permission to abort at a later time? I have no answer to this question.

I think that about sums up my feelings on the situation... I just didn't quite put it in to the words that OptimisticOwl did.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I think people should have the right to choose for themselves whether abortion is for them or not. Personally, I think it is a digusting practice, and I pity anyone who makes that choice. I'd rather advocate for personal responsibilty. You need to account for your actions. Anyone who uses abortion more than once for social reasons obviously failed to learn something key about they way they live their life.

Death Penalty? Against. Yeah some cognitive dissonance for you guys. I think the death penalty amounts to nothing more than revenge. Sure some of these guys never reform, but the end result is the same. However, some do reform and can be a positive influence from the inside of prisons. They still end up dying there with Life (no parole). Also, the slim number of innocents who end up on death row. Cory Maye for instance was put on death row. Definitly the exception, not the rule, but for anyone supporting the death penalty has to think that killing innocent people is an "acceptable risk" or "collateral damage."

Well said... I totally agree with your view point.

As I've said over and over, I'm not for abortion, I just don't think it is my position to tell another person whether they can have an abortion or not. And, after all is said and done, they will have to meet the maker and deal with any repercusions involved with their actions. Due to this, I feel as though *IF* it is wrong (in gods eyes) things will work out in the end.

Here is a positive spin on abortion.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

Quote:No actually those three are not the same. In the case of the abortion and the death penalty, the person getting killed in both situations are ina position where they cannot control the decision of whether they live or day.

This is really makes zero sense. As owl pointed out very well abortion and the death penalty are not the same because the circumstances that surround them are very different.

Quote:The unborn baby's life is at the sole mercy of the mother

Very true.

Quote:and the death penalty convict's life is at the mercy of the judge or jury.

Wrong. The convicts life was in their hands when they decided to commit murder and in turn place themselves in a situation where the death penalty could come into play. They had the choice of whether to commit murder and thus open themselves up to the consequences of their actions. An unborn child makes no such choice and has no such opportunity. Therefore they are not the same.

Quote:In your self defense situation, the only way it would be the same as the other 2 situations would be if you incapacitated the person you were defending yourself against and then decided to kill that person while they could no longer defend themselves (I personally do not believe this is what you meant when you wrote the original statement, nor do I believe that you would kill an incapicated person willingly in this manner, but I could be wrong).

So the circumstances in the self defense example matter even though the end result is the same as the previous two?

Quote:Actually my view is the most logical because regardless of the reasons/circumstances, the end action is still the same.

Now we're back to regardless of the reasons/circumstances when in your last paragraph the reasons/circumstances mattered. Which is it?

GrayBeard Wrote:

mlb Wrote:Instead we allow our children to go to orphanages that don't offer the love and support one needs to have an above average chance to succeed in life.

Instead, the abortion takes away all chance of that happening. If you were that fetus, would you rather die or have a small chance at suceeding in life? Be honest.

This is a trick question, Fetus's can't think!