A Nation Rises

[QGator2414]

I know some will not like how this video was done.

That said if you have kids or have heard a child's heartbeat before they are born it speaks loudly to the wake up call we need...

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The honest person that wishes to debate this issue realizes that abortion is a rare case where somebody's rights are being violated, no matter what legislation is enacted..

In another thread, many of us lamented the lack of fealty to the 9th amendment that our government has shown. Clearly, those of us that argue this cannot argue that a woman (and a man) do not have the rights to privacy, the rights to body determination and the rights on when and if to become a parent. And just as clearly, prohibiting abortion does indeed infringe on those rights.

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

So how does a civilized society resolve this? No matter which avenue is taken, someone's rights will be infringed.

Western civilization has employed the concept of the hierarchy of rights to resolve the rare cases of competing rights.

[bluelang]

Nice post MJW.

[QGator2414]

Well put response. I agree that someone's "rights" will be infringed upon to a point.

That said are one "rights" really being infringed on if they willfully (not rape or mothers life being in jeopardy) create a life?

[QGator2414]

Here is a powerful statement to the issue of abortion but also to the situation of rape and incest that many feel should be an exception.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

That said are one "rights" really being infringed on if they willfully (not rape or mothers life being in jeopardy) create a life?

When I talk about this with others, I avoid that particular argument, valid as it is. Employing that argument goes down the road to being judgmental, which tends to introduce too much emotion into the discussion.

[gator1986]

Another argument that no one will ever win....

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

The honest person that wishes to debate this issue realizes that abortion is a rare case where somebody's rights are being violated, no matter what legislation is enacted..

In another thread, many of us lamented the lack of fealty to the 9th amendment that our government has shown. Clearly, those of us that argue this cannot argue that a woman (and a man) do not have the rights to privacy, the rights to body determination and the rights on when and if to become a parent. And just as clearly, prohibiting abortion does indeed infringe on those rights.

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

So how does a civilized society resolve this? No matter which avenue is taken, someone's rights will be infringed.

Western civilization has employed the concept of the hierarchy of rights to resolve the rare cases of competing rights.

Great points. Too bad we never hear any of them from the political enterprises that see this issue as nothing more than a political cash cow and who will keep the debate (see: never seek resolution of any kind) going from now until the end of time. . . or the USA, whichever comes first.

And now comes Gay Marriage. The second revenue stream for these corrupt political entities. Get ready to hash this one out for the next 100 years with no resolution.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Here is a powerful statement to the issue of abortion but also to the situation of rape and incest that many feel should be an exception.

Bottom line for the Pro-Lifers: You CANNOT have it both ways. It's either a life or it's not. If you believe abortion is taking a life, then the circumstances surrounding the conception of said life should not matter.

Sticky situation for you folks to be sure.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gator1986

Another argument that no one will ever win....

This is by design.

Wonder what the CEO of the American Family Association makes? Or their top lobbiests?

Ditto for the CEO of Planned Parenthood and their top lobbiests?


Want real answers? Follow the money.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

And now comes Gay Marriage. T

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

It's also an easily solveable issue. Marriage Licenses are given a numerical designation, eliminating the major problem with this issue: The emotional connection to the word marriage. Then the government can focus on what it should be focused on. That being, whether a committed couple (opposite sex or same sex) is to be granted certain privilages with regards to probate, power of attorney in cases of medical hardship and tax status. These things are THE ONLY THING the government should be concerning itself with.

As for the word "Marriage" and it's definition? Leave that where it belongs, with Webster and the court of public opinion.

The beauty of this solution is that 1. Most Americans would go along with it and; 2. Those who have a problem with it will clearly be the extremeists. The reason it won't happen is just as easy: Money and no political pound of flesh to extract from the enemy.


Call me in 20 years and I'll bet my life the issue is still raging. . . and the lobbiests and folks at those non-profits will still be cashing their checks.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

I'd like to hear the non-religious case for an organism without a brain having rights. I mean that seriously.

[JerseyGator01]

Most of the early feminists were pro-life. Read up on Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an associate of Susan B. Anthony. She was non-religious.

The March for Life is an amazing event. 100,000+ on a weekday in the dead of winter in DC with a real peaceful feel to it. No wonder the media ignores it. They must have the public believe that all pro-lifers are terrorists as noted in this recent item from The daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-Fetuspalooza#

[ChartsandGrafs]

The non-existent rights of a fetus or child in the womb do not supersede the rights of the mother to her own body. A fetus or child in the womb is entirely dependent on the mother for life, oxygen, and nourishment. The mother's body is the vessel, and the mother has primary claim to it. If a mother decides she doesn't want to be a mother while the fetus or child is in the womb, or simply no longer wishes to carry another organism around in her body, then it is her right and her right alone to terminate the pregnancy.

I don't like it any more than you guys like it, but it is what it is. We own our bodies and have primary claim to what goes on inside them.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

When I talk about this with others, I avoid that particular argument, valid as it is. Employing that argument goes down the road to being judgmental, which tends to introduce too much emotion into the discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly. This topic seems to attract too much emotion all the time...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Bottom line for the Pro-Lifers: You CANNOT have it both ways. It's either a life or it's not. If you believe abortion is taking a life, then the circumstances surrounding the conception of said life should not matter.

Sticky situation for you folks to be sure.

I agree with Dr. Baucham on the issue and it is not that tricky for me.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

Off topic...This is my preference.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I'd like to hear the non-religious case for an organism without a brain having rights. I mean that seriously.

... which is precisely why I don't think people should have the right to vote.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

... which is precisely why I don't think people should have the right to vote.

Do they?