 |
I'm not butting in or dictating your beliefs and values. There is a tremendous and obvious difference between dictating and persuading. Dictating is mandating the church buy contraceptives against beliefs in clear violation of first amendment rights. Dictating is banning sodas and Happy Meals, perfectly legal items. Persuading is convincing you to give the child a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
See how easy that was?
YOU may not be doing that. But it is clear that the anti-abortion lobby would like to make any abortion illegal. By advocating laws that would remove the right to choose they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on people who believe differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you want to offer reasons a fetus is a child or when it becomes a child. If you want to offer reasons you feel current laws do not "give a child a chance", feel free to do so. Just as I feel free to explain why I believe in giving the mother the choice. Lets try to keep this from personalities.
And that's different from what this administration has already done by executive fiat with the contraception mandate how? This is why all this outrage over the "anti-choice" crowd as you label them doesn't move me. The left LOVES restricting choice and dictating beliefs, and they don't even bother with legalities now, they just decree it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
In other words, feel free to discuss on your terms?Quote:
If you want to offer reasons a fetus is a child or when it becomes a child. If you want to offer reasons you feel current laws do not "give a child a chance", feel free to do so. Just as I feel free to explain why I believe in giving the mother the choice.
Comment here would be pointless.Quote:
Lets try to keep this from personalities.
Once again the church is not forced to buy any contraceptives. In any case people still have the choice not to use them, I would assume that if all church attendees were like yourself then there would be no demand for contraceptives so nothing changes. If you ban abortions then you remove the choice and dictate what people can or cannot do.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
But why should my tax money pay for someone's abortion,
if it is legal, let them write a check and pay for it. Let the babies daddy write the check. Why should I, who believe they are a sin and against moral values, have to have my tax money pay for someone abortion.
Thus my issue, it is a women's choice, I may not like it or agree, but that is the current law. So she should have to chose to pay for it.
I would like to chose to drive a Lincoln , but I can't get other people to pay for it, so I drive a Honda.
An abortion is not a "right" given under the Constitution, it is not a life saving medical procedure, it is as noted, a "choice" so with all choices in life, the person chosing it, should have to pay for it.
You can't any further from the truth than your first sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The only "terms" to this discussion is the rules of this site that prevent personal attacks. As long as posts do not involve such they will be allowed. Nothing has been removed from this thread other than personal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm not arguing with this, I'm just asking both of you to provide proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I agree with you here. Keep it legal but it should be part of the individual's insurance plan. Unfortunately I understand people don't have that much choice in insurers at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Hello again,
Yeah, it's a double post... I assume you're NOT answering, because you DON'T have an answer... Yeah... We already KNEW that.
Personally, I'm not here to discuss Obama's views on abortion.. I'm interested in YOURS.
Tell me how you'd MAKE your daughter bear her rapists kid... What if it was your WIFE? You'd take the rapists child in?? You'd raise him? Nahhh, you wouldn't.. Who're you trying to kid?
excon
____________
The only his statement can be true is if the government redefines the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
But it IS a life-saving procedure sometimes. Shouldn't it be covered for those women? Or does the life of the fetus trump their own right to life? And sometimes the choice is between raising your rapist's child and keeping your sanity--what kind of choice is THAT? And pretty please do not bring up adoption as a "better" choice than abortion. Adoption has it's own scars and battles, and being designated as "at least you didn't get an abortion" is one of the most common comments I got when I chose adoption. I honestly think I'd have fewer scars had I chose an abortion, but I knew that wasn't the right choice for me.
Honestly, MOST women aren't sitting there thinking "thank god I can get an abortion any time I want to, because that means I can just have as much sex as I want and not worry about it!" Every single woman I know that chose abortion thought long and hard about it, and still required counseling afterwards. It's not something that you just go "oops! I'm pregnant! Guess I'd better just pop on down and get an abortion!"---but that's the way it gets presented over and over by the anti-choice crowd. I know 5 women who have had abortions. For 2, it was a serious medical reason--the fetus was not going to live in either case. For 1, it was because she'd been raped by her uncle. For 1, it was that she was in an emotional state that she felt was impossible to sustain a pregnancy. And for the final 1, she already had 3 kids, could not afford another, and knew that when it came down to it she couldn't give her child that she carried to term to someone else. It literally came down to that her other children would suffer if she had another child.
4 of the 5 women were using birth control. The 5th--the one that was raped--was a virgin and hadn't had a need for birth control at that point in her life.
I really think that men have no concept of all of the changes that happen during pregnancy, and that while pregnancy can be truly wonderful and a blessing in every way---it can also be a horrible nightmare that a woman can't walk away from like a man can. You can't distance yourself, you can't ignore it, and you certainly can't just decide it's not yours and have nothing more to do with it. Pregnancy changes you in EVERY way. Some women simply are not up for that change, or cannot bear to go through an entire pregnancy for a child that will not (or is not already) live.
We had to have the discussion before my 20 week ultrasound on what we would do if the child had serious genetic issues or problems that would cause the child's life to be horrible. And this was with a longed-for and wanted pregnancy! I don't know what we would have done if we'd been told the child showed signs of a disease that would condemn the child to death (and us to so many medical bills we would have never had the money for another child) before the child even reached a year old. Worse, I read a story of a mother (and I cannot find it now) who chose to give birth even after the blood test and ultrasound findings, and she watched her child slowly die. Could you REALLY condemn someone to this? Both the child and the parents?
I understand not wanting to pay for abortion used as birth control--but there are so many OTHER reasons for abortions to happen, how can you deny financial help to parents who have to make such a horrible decision to begin with?
Sorry excon, but time to close this one.
This is a subject we will all never agree on so rather than descending further into well known territory lets salvage some sense of respectability...
I just had to respond to this with an AMEN!Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:07 PM. |