Being impregnated during a rape is just like getting a flat tire

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

or fetus or whatever one wants to call it to help dehumanize the decision

You know that's not what's happening. To some, a fetus is a person. To others, it's a fetus.

Pretty sure that's what all this fuss is about.....

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

As for why conservatives argue this, well I can't speak for all conservatives, however, I consider it a murder of a child. Therefore why would I be upset if the government is trying to stop a murder.

Right, which is why this debate is doomed from the start, because of religious beliefs clouding the issue.

I approach it from a science viewpoint, and even then I like to err on the side of keeping abortions legal only up to a certain length of time, based on what we know of fetus development.

The idea that a few week old fetus is equivalent a child is to me word games and the whole problem of the situation. I see it as a argument from logic and reason, you see it from faith and conviction.

Which is why religious interpretation of these laws is a bad idea, if you yourself are religious by all means don't have an abortion, but to push your illogical thinking of a fetus being equivalent to a child on to those who do not share this belief is wrong. You can argue your belief all you want, just keep out of the courts and stop trying to insert more obstacles to women's right to choose since you know going up against roe v wade is not feasible.

It reminds me too much of the religious rights attempts to re-brand creationism as intelligent design. Can't ban abortion? why not try everything else to make it as hard as possible for the woman. The tactic is obvious.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Facts, please. Otherwise, conjecture.

Seriously?

And I suppose that there are facts/stats demonstrating that a large segment of the female population frequently use abortion as their primary method of birth control?

I'm all for stats and facts, but ya gotta be reasonable.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think you are underestimating the degree of regret we are talking about.

The physical and mental health risks of an abortion are less than those of continuing with the pregnancy, statistically speaking.

Maybe pregnant women should be compelled to watch certain videos before deciding to continue with the pregnancy, or else no insurance.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, I don't know many women who regret the lives of their children.

I didn't say they regretted their lives, I'm talking about simply regret over the pregnancy when the baby is born, the fact that the baby isn't inside anymore. That's something they talked about during our pre-natal classes and some of the group we kept in touch with had very difficult times post-birth.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is pretty hard for a Mother or anyone in society to hold a baby and still see it as non-human or a leech that should be cut up and discarded.

Meaningless hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps, but you don't know that.

I already posted a link showing where it's already been done, including one case of requiring specific counselling but not having any organizations approved to provide that counselling.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are far more than 2 choices involved. Look at the Republican party right now. They have a Libertarian candidate who would stop America from stopping missiles immediately.

How many credible candidates did Obama beat in the election to become President?

Besides we are talking about Kansas here. The people of Kansas voted for people who agreed with them that they shouldn't have to help fund abortions. Good on them!

It's so stupid though. The free market should determine what is available to the consumer, not government legislation. It's either wasting time on something that the people can determine through their wallets or a vocal minority looking to impose their beliefs on everyone.

[Locke]

Considering one can get a Marguerita the size of their head via a drive-thru (ugh) in Lousiana, how long before the first drive through Abortion clinic?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

How many credible candidates did Obama beat in the election to become President?

I didn't/don't think Obama was/is a creditable cadidate. He won though so now the world must endure the consequences.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It's so stupid though. The free market should determine what is available to the consumer, not government legislation. It's either wasting time on something that the people can determine through their wallets or a vocal minority looking to impose their beliefs on everyone.

If the free market had a free hand women would pay more for health care then men, all kinds of predetermined problems would disallow you from insurance or vastly limit that coverage, and there would be all sorts of loop holes to limit coverage. Do some of these things still occur? Sure but, in a limited capacity because the government there.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I didn't/don't think Obama was/is a creditable cadidate. He won though so now the world must endure the consequences.




If the free market had a free hand women would pay more for health care then men, all kinds of predetermined problems would disallow you from insurance or vastly limit that coverage, and there would be all sorts of loop holes to limit coverage. Do some of these things still occur? Sure but, in a limited capacity because the government there.

If the church can just decide to throw unborn children into 'limbo' and reverse their stance on condoms in Africa - would you follow their belief if they changed their stance on abortion?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

If the church can just decide to throw unborn children into 'limbo' and reverse their stance on condoms in Africa - would you follow their belief if they changed their stance on abortion?

That was the Catholic church that did that. Don't think Calgaryborn is Catholic.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Ark2

That was the Catholic church that did that. Don't think Calgaryborn is Catholic.

Plus Catholics aren't Christian.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I didn't/don't think Obama was/is a creditable cadidate. He won though so now the world must endure the consequences.

That's right. He's Muslim and not American. I keep forgetting that.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't think the government should fund any charity that is political in nature. It is like funding a lobbyist group. I know Planned Parenthood does more than engage in politics but, it is a large part of what they do.

Great. Churches can start paying taxes then. They're basically subsidized political lobbyists, at least in the US.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

If the church can just decide to throw unborn children into 'limbo' and reverse their stance on condoms in Africa - would you follow their belief if they changed their stance on abortion?

I'm not Catholic. I am independant Baptist. We don't believe in "limbo" and have no position on condoms.

In fact I don't think we have a position on abortion within our Statement of Faith. I'm not even sure if I've heard our Pastor preach against abortion although he may have mentioned it in passing. Having said that, I'm pretty sure most if not all of the members of our Church opposes abortion. Any I've spoken with already did.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Great. Churches can start paying taxes then. They're basically subsidized political lobbyists, at least in the US.

Churches at least in Canada must account for every cent they spend. Other than expenses they can only give money to other registered charities. They aren't allowed to promote a candidate or party during an election and I don't think they could donate to a political party. I know we wouldn't even if we could.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Plus Catholics aren't Christian.

Umm, what?

Sure they are. Some Christians don't think so because they believe that Catholics believe too much in salvation from the church and god, as opposed to just Jesus, but they are still Christians.

[MarchHare]

It is pretty hard for a Mother or anyone in society to hold a baby and still see it as non-human or a leech that should be cut up and discarded.

Show me one pro-choice person, ANYWHERE, who has ever proposed cutting up and discarding live babies.

Trying to engage you in rational, intelligent conversation about this highly complex issue is pointless if you're not even capable of acknowledging the difference between this:


and this:

[SeeBass]

CalgaryBorn

I want to understand your stance better. Do you believe in the use of contraceptives, condoms,pill, and such that prevent pregnancies?

If you do... do you believe that some of these items should be allowed on people's health plans?

I am in favour and I would think most of us would that the less abortions the better.
Would you also believe that anything our society would do to cut down on unprotected sex is a good thing?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They aren't allowed to promote a candidate or party during an election and I don't think they could donate to a political party.

They're not supposed to, but I've certainly been to church services that have promoted specific candidates from the pulpit. I even attended a church who's pastor ran in his riding (though I wasn't attending at that time).

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The people of Kansas don't want to be forced by their insurance companies to pay for the killing of unborn children. That is more than reasonable. They are not preventing insurance carriers from offering coverage but, simply don't want it part of general coverage wherein they would be in part paying for it.

Surely in a free market economy it would be up to the insurance companies to offer coverage at a price that matches the needs of the people of Kansas.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Show me one pro-choice person, ANYWHERE, who has ever proposed cutting up and discarding live babies.

Trying to engage you in rational, intelligent conversation about this highly complex issue is pointless if you're not even capable of acknowledging the difference between this:


and this:

You don't think it is a live baby until it comes through the birth canal? I hope that isn't your position because that isn't logical or scientific.

If that isn't your position than you see humanity in the unborn at some point. Which point would that be? When he/she looks human to the eye? When he/she can survive outside of the mother's body? When he/she begins to grow and divide?

Once it's determined when the child reaches the lofty hieghts of human than the question of accountability can be looked at. What if any obligation does a mother have towards her child? What rights does she have?

With the advancements in science children born earlier and earlier can survive. Should a women who desires to abort a viable child be rather given only the option of delivering the child early? Also in such a situation should she be held financially accountable for the child like the father is without a choice?