1. Gator Country Black Friday special!

    Stay on top of the football coach search with the Insider Authority on Gator Sports with a special discount!

    Now's a great time to join or renew and get up to $20 off your annual subscription! LIMITED QUANTITIES -- for details click here.

Question For Posters Who Are Pro-Choice

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. Gatormb
    Online

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,140
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,013
    Guy plead guilty to lesser charges in a plea bargain after being charged originally with murder. Judge is having hearings this week from Doctors on whether the pills caused the miscarriage before sentencing.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...ther-abortion-pill-caused-miscarriage/2156209
  2. Gatormb
    Online

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,140
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,013
    From the link.

    In his order, Lazzara said he appreciated that the prosecutor and defense counsel engaged in good-faith plea negotiations to resolve the case without trial, but he has an independent obligation to determine the facts of the case.

    Welden pleaded guilty in September to consumer product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In exchange, the government dropped a first-degree murder charge filed under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which could have been punishable by life.

    Soooo, the federal government describes the killing of an embryo as MURDER. So in effect a woman has the right to choose murder, yes?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Dreamliner
    Online

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,914
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,762
    Stung, didn't it ?
  4. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
  5. Dreamliner
    Online

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,914
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,762
    Not a big fan if irony, I see. Slaveholders were the pro-choicers of their day. Slavery was a personal choice. What right would you have had to question their slave-holding ?
  6. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    Irony, I enjoy. That you think it somehow stung me is adorable
  7. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,395
    Likes Received:
    426
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,158
    And that's the untenable situation that many anti-abortion folks find themselves in. They claim it's murder, it's wrong, etc. But it's really the mother's choice to have unprotected sex that they're talking about.
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2013
  8. Dreamliner
    Online

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,914
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,762
    You were caught in your inconsistency. Hell, even I could see that.
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    huh? How so?
  10. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,531
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,896
    This must be why you idolize Lincoln so much. Militant "pro-lifer" that he was and all.
  11. Dreamliner
    Online

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,914
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,762
    Slavery is a personal decision. It's not for you to decide.
  12. JerseyGator01
    Online

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,353
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +718
    Yep, if you don't like slavery, then don't own one.
  13. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    3,045
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +878
    What is nuts to me is a woman can decide to have a baby against a father's wishes and trap him into 18 years of child support against his will.

    And, she can choose to abort the kid despite his wishes not to.

    This makes no sense. The man gets all the responsibility with no say so in the decision.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +696
    It isn't fair, but then biology isn't fair either. For the fetus growing inside a woman's body, there is only one, single, solitary person that can nurture the fetus to the next stage of life--the pregnant mother. That puts a huge burden on the pregnant woman. In no other cases would we ever force a person to care for another and/or save another's life. For example, if someone needed a transplant to live and you were the only possible donor on the planet, could anyone force you, legally, to undergo the operation? No. Yet, in the case of pregnant women, pro-life people would force women to care for the fetus regardless of their wishes.

    Yes I know, the overwhelming majority of women get pregnant by their own, unforced actions. But that doesn't mean we should still force said women to carry to term regardless of their wishes.

    I also know that means the end of a potential human life. But what recourse do we have? If a women who just gave birth comes up to you with a newborn, hands it to you, and then disappears, every single one of us reading this would be able to ensure that child lives. But rewind six months, and the same woman comes up to you 3 months pregnant and says she wants nothing to do with the child and just wants to hand it to some stranger and disappear, what can we do to save the fetus' life? If the women is adamant about not wanting to carry to term, either we allow for abortion, or force the woman to care for another against her wishes. And it's the pro-life people making the slavery comparisons? Complicated issue, because isn't being forced to do something for the sake of another a form of slavery?

    Now back to the original post, I don't think we have to worry about ever finding 1 true gay gene. What we've learned is there are too many factors, and there are twins with the same genome where 1 is gay, and the other is straight (NBA Collins brothers as an example). We also know that the more older brothers you have, the higher the chance the youngest brother is gay. But there is no guarantee, and I have a friend who's father is a first-born, high achiever type (F4 fighter pilot in Nam) that came out about a decade ago, who has 3 sons of his own, all three straight as arrows. So I think it's a moot question in terms of sexuality.

    But there is the larger issue of genetically choosing the traits your offspring have (GATACA). That may be possible in the future, and for sure, the majority of people would chose their offspring to have the highest possibility of being straight as possible. Again, with no specific gene or genes, I don't think there is 100% certainty we can predict the sexuality of a child. Still, it could potentially be possible to lower the chances of homosexuality to near 0% in the future.

    Which brings me to the answer of the original question. In my opinion, a woman should be able to abort within the first 20 weeks for any reason. Her life is not ours to decide what to do with. And yes, that ends the life of another, but with no way of saving the fetus, we should not force women into caring for those they do not want to care for. And that goes for anyone who wants to abort a potential homosexual kid as well as any other reason.
  15. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,469
    If we actually gave a damn about resolution, this is where we would start the discussion. I bet we could get at least 70% of Americans to agree, at the very least, on a reasonable cutoff time. After that, you will have to jump through some hoops, some even flaming. But, again, what is represented in the debate are the two extremes: No Abortion whatsoever vs. Abortion as Pez. And we wonder why there has been little if any movement either way since RvW.
  16. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    Since I didn't comment on slavery, but the silliness of your post, the alleged inconsistency is a figment of your imagination.
  17. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +452
    We all know the story of the good Samaritan. This is from Luke 10:25-37.

    25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

    29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
    When I think about abortion this passage comes to mind. The people who passed by decided that they would not help the man because it was too much of an inconvenience for them. So the justification for not helping the man was personal convenience. The Samaritan had an obvious reason not to help the man, and that had everything to do with race. Jews considered the Samaritans to be illegitimate half breeds (which was the way that Jews dehumanized Samaritans), but the Samaritan man was willing to help anyways.

    Slavery appealed to these same two motives as well: personal convenience, and the sub-humanity of the victim. We can see how slaves were dehumanized and not considered fully human. That is what the three-fifths compromise was all about. And that is what the n-word is all about. The n-word was a way for the white man to dehumanize the victims of slavery.

    When we take a close look at abortion we will see that the arguments are essentially the same. We see the same attempt to dehumanize the victim and appeal to the personal convenience of the person who neglects the victim. The two arguments are that a) pre-born babies are sub-human and b) child birth might inconvenience the life of the mother.

    Do abortion advocates have an equivalent word to the n-word that serves to label the victim as sub-human? I think they do. That word is "fetus." The word "fetus" accomplishes the same thing that the n-word did. It allows the abortion advocate to discriminate between the victim of abortion and the rest of the human race. Some people might protest this assertion by saying that fetus is medical terminology, but the sub-humanness of other races was also the popular opinion of science for a good time.

    Abortion, however, is different than the parable of the good Samaritan or slavery. The character that best represents a mother who would terminate the life of her baby is the robbers. The difference here is that the mother does not simply rob her child of its possessions or liberty. The mother actually robs her own pre-born child of its right to life. Even if the child was thrown on the side of the road like the man in the parable of the good Samaritan it wouldn't matter. When people pass by on the side of the road the victim is already dead. There is no good Samaritan to help these poor children who are victims of abortion.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +452
    I find this position totally untenable. The very fact that murder is a crime means that people are not allowed exercise their civil liberties in a way that violates another's right to life. When people murder they lose the right to decide what to do with their own lives. To make an exception for the murder of pre-born children is to discriminate on the basis of age in the grossest and most unjust way. Pre-born children are as fully human as you and I.

    In no other case would personal convenience and the "right to choose" be the justification for a death sentence on another human being.
  19. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +696
    If a person is wholly and completely beholden on another for life, who has control of said life? The living person, or the beholden one? Our legal system has already answered that. If a person has power-of-attorney over another who is incapacitated, and cannot live without some sort of aid (life support), the person with power-of-attorney can effectively kill the other by "pulling the plug." Yet this is not considered murder.

    But where does that power end? Can a parent of a newborn who is equally wholly dependent decide to "pull the plug" on feeding the child? No, but that doesn't mean we force the parent to care for the child. The parent can give up parental rights altogether and either allow a family member to take over or give the child to the state. In cases where the person can live, the beholden still has the ability to bow out, as long as the life of the first party is cared for.

    But what about the pregnant woman? Clearly she has the power to care for the baby inside her. There is also no way she can abdicate parental rights and have the baby live. So what are her options?

    If pro-life people have their way, she has none. She is clearly a slave to the child growing inside her and must give up all her rights until said baby comes to term. Is this really what we want? And what about the small number of cases where a woman gets pregnant against her will such as rape? And if you allow for abortion in cases of rape, ask yourself this. Is a child conceived from rape any less innocent than a child conceived from love?

    Sorry, but I don't accept your premise that the pre-born have all the same rights as the born, based on the fact that the pre-born are wholly and completely dependent on a single individual for care. And the rights of the born (mother) take precedence over those of the pre-born (fetus).
  20. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,469

    I'm going to assume you favor giving all rights to the unborn which would make Abortion, by definition, 1st Degree Capital Murder. Just to be fair, I'm pro-choice, but I've always felt this was the only real way to legislate it away. Otherwise, don't you start making the other side's argument for them (that it's not the same as a "born" person).

Share This Page