Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[royal_archer]

**Yes, everyone has a choice about everything. And yes, you could choose to kill your parents tonight. It makes absolutely no difference if the act is legal or illegal. THAT is the point. You say I’m “going off about free will”? You bet I am. If I am driven to smash the car into a restaurant full of people, that decision would come from choice. If I decided to give away everything I own and wander the lower 48 with nothing but a loaf of bread and a prayer book, that decision would originate in choice. It would come from having options and the God-given free will to decide what was to be my next course of action, the next thing that I do with the life that God gave me. And it has everything to do with the topic, which is “Anybody out there pro-choice?” That IS the topic, for heaven’s sake.

I’m not saying abortion is the right choice. I believe I have no business deciding what is right for anyone but myself. Choice allows us to make mistakes and learn from them. Or haven’t you ever done that?

Limerick **

What you wrote makes it sound like you feel you have the choice and “God-given free will to decide what was to be my next course of action” to do what ever you want. It sounds like if my kids were crossing the street in front of you, you could just choose to run them over with the advocacy of it being your choice to do it or not. This apparent attitude toward murder makes you sound like a threat to our society that the government should deal with. While I would not venture to make a diagonsis on this site, your self proclaimed approach to choice shows much similarity with the ter sociopath. I hope you are just trying to make a point by speaking to the extreme and do not feel this way. Please explain how your attitude towards this topic differs from sociopaths.

This is not intended to be an insult, just an offer for you to clarify your possition.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Isn’t it funny that - to quote the sage whose name I can’t remember right now - “None of those advocating abortion have ever been aborted.” Not only that, most of them seem to be vigorously alive and probably would respond if asked that they love life…Too bad they can’t see how those millions of aborted babies would have loved to live too.

Too bad indeed.

And I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why it’s against the law to step on a freaking turtle egg but not against the law to dismember a human baby in his mother’s womb.

 

[royal_archer]

**I…
I don’t know, elts. It’s a great big complex mess and it seems people are powerless to clean it up. Once the floodgates are open, how do you shut them again?

Limerick**

Look at how our rights (as defined by the constitution) are being taken away. They do it by slowly regulating them into oblivion. It is not politically feasible to outlaw abortion. It is feasible to penalize some forms of abortion and some extramarital acts between minors.

 

[limerick]

What you wrote makes it sound like you feel you have the choice and “God-given free will to decide what was to be my next course of action” to do what ever you want. It sounds like if my kids were crossing the street in front of you, you could just choose to run them over with the advocacy of it being your choice to do it or not. This apparent attitude toward murder makes you sound like a threat to our society that the government should deal with. While I would not venture to make a diagonsis on this site, your self proclaimed approach to choice shows much similarity with the ter sociopath. I hope you are just trying to make a point by speaking to the extreme and do not feel this way. Please explain how your attitude towards this topic differs from sociopaths.

This is not intended to be an insult, just an offer for you to clarify your possition.

**I do indeed have the freedom of choice to do whatever I want. If your kids were crossing the street in front of me, I certainly could choose to run them over. As it happens, I have no desire to harm your children, so I would not choose to run them over. But bear in mind that everyone has the ability to choose to run them over at any time for any reason or for no reason, without regard to the legality/illegality or morality/immorality of the act.

Now, what you have said about not venturing to make a diagnosis on this site as to my mental state is perfectly balanced by your willingness to proceed without caution anyway and stick me in the same category as a sociopath. I do not have sociopathic tendencies; I have merely pointed out that we all have free will, that we make decisions all day long, we act, and then we experience whatever consequences might be connected to said act. This is not sociopathic thinking. It is a fact of life. I am no more a threat to society than you, and the government does not have the power to rein me in as long as I act within the law. If I were to run your children down I would be breaking the law. Here we have legal, moral, spiritual consequences. If I have an abortion today I am not breaking the law. There may be moral, spiritual, psychological consequences, but no legal repercussions.

Each person involved in abortion has a personal response to the situation. Every response is not like your response. You may have great difficulty understanding their aloofness or anger or bewilderment, but your feelings do not give you the authority to evaluate or judge their behavior. God can handle that pretty well on His own.

I have a conscience. That’s the difference between me and a sociopath. My conscience may have developed differently than yours. I think that’s the starting place for tolerance.

Limerick **

 

[royal_archer]

**I do indeed have the freedom of choice to do whatever I want. If your kids were crossing the street in front of me, I certainly could choose to run them over. As it happens, I have no desire to harm your children, so I would not choose to run them over. But bear in mind that everyone has the ability to choose to run them over at any time for any reason or for no reason, without regard to the legality/illegality or morality/immorality of the act.

Now, what you have said about not venturing to make a diagnosis on this site as to my mental state is perfectly balanced by your willingness to proceed without caution anyway and stick me in the same category as a sociopath. I do not have sociopathic tendencies; I have merely pointed out that we all have free will, that we make decisions all day long, we act, and then we experience whatever consequences might be connected to said act. This is not sociopathic thinking. It is a fact of life. I am no more a threat to society than you, and the government does not have the power to rein me in as long as I act within the law. If I were to run your children down I would be breaking the law. Here we have legal, moral, spiritual consequences. If I have an abortion today I am not breaking the law. There may be moral, spiritual, psychological consequences, but no legal repercussions.

Each person involved in abortion has a personal response to the situation. Every response is not like your response. You may have great difficulty understanding their aloofness or anger or bewilderment, but your feelings do not give you the authority to evaluate or judge their behavior. God can handle that pretty well on His own.

I have a conscience. That’s the difference between me and a sociopath. My conscience may have developed differently than yours. I think that’s the starting place for tolerance.

Limerick **

So do you acknowledge the right and duty of society to punish those who “choose” to harm others?

Do you acknowldge that free will is not equal to free license to commit harmful acts?

 

[limerick]

So do you acknowledge the right and duty of society to punish those who “choose” to harm others?

Do you acknowldge that free will is not equal to free license to commit harmful acts?

**I acknowledge the right and duty of every member of American society to allow women to choose abortion as an alternative to carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term. I acknowledge the right and duty of society’s members to follow their own individual consciences, to lobby for and vote for and pray for and activate for the changes that they feel are necessary to make ours a better society. I acknowledge the right and duty of every person who finds the abortion dilemma hitting particularly close to home to deal with the situation as his or her conscience dictates, and to be free of hindrance, ridicule or censure from other members of society for having done so.

I believe that free will is often interpreted as freedom to choose only the good, but that it is, in fact, freedom to choose a poorer alternative, even an evil alternative. If it is to be free will it must be completely free by definition, without limitations, without conditions, without demands, exempt from arbitrary domination or distinction: the faculty of choosing good or evil without compulsion or necessity.

I do not believe abortion is always a harmful act.

Perhaps this might answer some of your questions.

Limerick **

 

[royal_archer]

**I acknowledge the right and duty of every member of American society to allow women to choose abortion as an alternative to carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term. I acknowledge the right and duty of society’s members to follow their own individual consciences, to lobby for and vote for and pray for and activate for the changes that they feel are necessary to make ours a better society. I acknowledge the right and duty of every person who finds the abortion dilemma hitting particularly close to home to deal with the situation as his or her conscience dictates, and to be free of hindrance, ridicule or censure from other members of society for having done so.

I believe that free will is often interpreted as freedom to choose only the good, but that it is, in fact, freedom to choose a poorer alternative, even an evil alternative. If it is to be free will it must be completely free by definition, without limitations, without conditions, without demands, exempt from arbitrary domination or distinction: the faculty of choosing good or evil without compulsion or necessity.

I do not believe abortion is always a harmful act.

Perhaps this might answer some of your questions.

Limerick **

So is your possition more towards the side of the “anarchist” where you believe people should be allowed to do as they please regardless of the impact to others and with out consequences from society?

 

[limerick]

So is your possition more towards the side of the “anarchist” where you believe people should be allowed to do as they please regardless of the impact to others and with out consequences from society?

**
Children should be raised with some sort of moral code.
Members of society should abide by all current laws.
Each member of society should carefully weigh out the implications of taking any action, no matter the nature of said act.
If consequences arise as a result of having taken action, then these consequences must be enforced and accepted.
If morality is adhered to it is unlikely that anarchy will ensue.
All morality will not have as its foundation Christianity. Some families will subscribe to no particular “religion” but this does not preclude living a moral life.
All members of society will not agree on what is moral, what is sinful, what is obscene, etc. Legislators will be kept forever busy defining and redefining these things to try to maintain a semblance of order.
A justice system is in place to address infractions of man-made law.
God is in place to address infractions of His law.
We are in place to obey His law. We will not all agree on the interpretations of Scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc. Feathers will get ruffled. Fingers will be pointed. Names will be called. Humans will be human.

You ask about consequences from society. It seems that this would be the least of a pro-lifer’s worries, particularly in view of the fact that abortion is legal.

Limerick
**

 

[royal_archer]

**
Children should be raised with some sort of moral code.
Members of society should abide by all current laws.
Each member of society should carefully weigh out the implications of taking any action, no matter the nature of said act.
If consequences arise as a result of having taken action, then these consequences must be enforced and accepted.
If morality is adhered to it is unlikely that anarchy will ensue.
All morality will not have as its foundation Christianity. Some families will subscribe to no particular “religion” but this does not preclude living a moral life.
All members of society will not agree on what is moral, what is sinful, what is obscene, etc. Legislators will be kept forever busy defining and redefining these things to try to maintain a semblance of order.
A justice system is in place to address infractions of man-made law.
God is in place to address infractions of His law.
We are in place to obey His law. We will not all agree on the interpretations of Scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc. Feathers will get ruffled. Fingers will be pointed. Names will be called. Humans will be human.

You ask about consequences from society. It seems that this would be the least of a pro-lifer’s worries, particularly in view of the fact that abortion is legal.

Limerick
**

At one time slavery was legal. At one time women were looked at as lesser citizens. In time the citizens of the country realized these were wrong and eventually forced the governent to instill their will.

It seems that you finally acknowledged societies role in creating and enforcing laws to protect other members of society.

Given that the Constitution guarantees all equal protection of the law. Why do you feel that a baby should not enjoy the same protections that are afforded to you?

 

[limerick]

At one time slavery was legal. At one time women were looked at as lesser citizens. In time the citizens of the country realized these were wrong and eventually forced the governent to instill their will.

It seems that you finally acknowledged societies role in creating and enforcing laws to protect other members of society.

Given that the Constitution guarantees all equal protection of the law. Why do you feel that a baby should not enjoy the same protections that are afforded to you?

**I make decisions for myself, not other people. The laws of this land should not be based on any one religious or moral agenda to the exclusion of all others. You are trying to put words in my mouth by stating that I feel that a baby should not enjoy the same protections that are afforded to me. I have not said this at all. First, an embryo or a fetus is not a baby. Second, if Kathy is pregnant, it is up to Kathy to decide whether or not her embryo or fetus should enjoy protections afforded to her. It’s not up to me to decide for her. I am strictly non-interventionist on this issue.

We have laws to protect members of society. To my knowledge, our current laws do not extend guarantees of protection or a legal right to birth to the embryo or fetus.

Should a fetus enjoy protection against abortion? I have been pregnant four times, with one live birth. Would you consider my opinion to be of any value?

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

**I make decisions for myself, not other people. The laws of this land should not be based on any one religious or moral agenda to the exclusion of all others. You are trying to put words in my mouth by stating that I feel that a baby should not enjoy the same protections that are afforded to me. I have not said this at all. First, an embryo or a fetus is not a baby. Second, if Kathy is pregnant, it is up to Kathy to decide whether or not her embryo or fetus should enjoy protections afforded to her. It’s not up to me to decide for her. I am strictly non-interventionist on this issue.

We have laws to protect members of society. To my knowledge, our current laws do not extend guarantees of protection or a legal right to birth to the embryo or fetus.

Should a fetus enjoy protection against abortion? I have been pregnant four times, with one live birth. Would you consider my opinion to be of any value?

Limerick**

This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of logic. And I believe that eventually you will see that logic. For instance what objective criteria do you use to say that it is OK to kill a prenatal baby? I believe you are using subjective criteria based on some preconceived notion or personal history. For instance in times of war soldiers frequently attempt to dehumanize those whom they have killed because it is the only way they can live with what they have done.

 

[jean8]

Life absolutely begins at conception. Science has already proved that.

Your right, God knew us while we were being formed in the womb. See. Ps.139:13-16
No one has the right to kill a baby in the womb. "thou shalt not kill " fifth commandment

God bless,
jean

 

[limerick]

This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of logic. And I believe that eventually you will see that logic. For instance what objective criteria do you use to say that it is OK to kill a prenatal baby? I believe you are using subjective criteria based on some preconceived notion or personal history. For instance in times of war soldiers frequently attempt to dehumanize those whom they have killed because it is the only way they can live with what they have done.

**
I will not see your logic because I do not live in a world of logic. To me it is mathematics and schedules and angles and hard surfaces. My life has been built upon my experiences. So, yes, I have personal history that has influenced my viewpoint. Who doesn’t?

You continue to insist that I claim it is “OK to kill a prenatal baby”. I have not said that in any post. I have said that the decision rests with the woman who is pregnant, not with me. If it is a sin it will be her sin, not mine. I do not insinuate myself, my opinions, my spirituality, or anything else into her decision-making unless she asks me, and even then I am careful not to persuade her in one direction or another which way to go. My view is Live and Let Live. She has her own conscience to direct her. She doesn’t need mine.

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

**
I will not see your logic because I do not live in a world of logic. To me it is mathematics and schedules and angles and hard surfaces. My life has been built upon my experiences. So, yes, I have personal history that has influenced my viewpoint. Who doesn’t?

You continue to insist that I claim it is “OK to kill a prenatal baby”. I have not said that in any post. I have said that the decision rests with the woman who is pregnant, not with me. If it is a sin it will be her sin, not mine. I do not insinuate myself, my opinions, my spirituality, or anything else into her decision-making unless she asks me, and even then I am careful not to persuade her in one direction or another which way to go. My view is Live and Let Live. She has her own conscience to direct her. She doesn’t need mine.

Limerick**

How can you say you are willing to stand by and allow a woman to kill her baby and not understand how it would be interpreted by others that you are not “OK” with it?

So If I see someone harming you and I have the ability to stop them should I also “live and let live”?

As for your opinion of logic, mathmatics, hard surfaces, etc. I hope you do not hold that perspective while opperating motor vehicles. The laws of physics hold no regard for those who do not live in world of logic.

 

[elts1956]

**
I will not see your logic because I do not live in a world of logic. To me it is mathematics and schedules and angles and hard surfaces. My life has been built upon my experiences. So, yes, I have personal history that has influenced my viewpoint. Who doesn’t?

You continue to insist that I claim it is “OK to kill a prenatal baby”. I have not said that in any post. I have said that the decision rests with the woman who is pregnant, not with me. If it is a sin it will be her sin, not mine. I do not insinuate myself, my opinions, my spirituality, or anything else into her decision-making unless she asks me, and even then I am careful not to persuade her in one direction or another which way to go. My view is Live and Let Live. She has her own conscience to direct her. She doesn’t need mine.

Limerick**

So are you talking of a world without law? To me live and let live means one does not judge another as to the level of right and wrong. This does not mean there should be no agreed upon law for protection of individuals and citizens.

The first laws to be made were made by consensus. If the members of the group did not agree, there was no law. But they continued to debate until a law was agreed upon. If a member of that society did not agree with the law, as in murder, they were dealt with. I just don’t see how live and let live laws can promote a civilized society.

 

[limerick]

So are you talking of a world without law? To me live and let live means one does not judge another as to the level of right and wrong. This does not mean there should be no agreed upon law for protection of individuals and citizens.

The first laws to be made were made by consensus. If the members of the group did not agree, there was no law. But they continued to debate until a law was agreed upon. If a member of that society did not agree with the law, as in murder, they were dealt with. I just don’t see how live and let live laws can promote a civilized society.

**elts 1956 and royal archer:

I have not said that “it is OK to kill a pre-natal baby” anywhere.

It makes absolutely no difference to me how others interpret my philosophy or moral code. It is no one’s business unless and until I break the law. Even then juries are seated to evaluate a crime and decide punishment - it is not a task for every single person on earth. royal archer, if you see someone “harming” me and you have the capacity to stop him or her, you will do what your conscience and your moral code dictate. If you intervened without my asking for help I would accept that. If you did not intervene, I would accept that. As for physics, I am trained enough to maneuver in this life but resent having had to learn difficult skills just to get along. With the exception of philosophy, astronomy and the like, as an artist I find the discipline of physics a total drag. I am grateful to those who are immersed in it, and equally grateful when any discoveries or inventions trickle down that make my life easier (though not necessarily simpler). So wherever else physics applies to my life today, if you look you will find frustration and resentment.

elts, I am not talking about a world without law. We are all held to the letter of the law of this land. Here we are talking about civil law and common law, a system of rules generally enforced through a set of institutions. I agree with you when you say, “This does not mean there should be no agreed upon law for protection of individuals and citizens.” Live and Let Live does not need to be applied to common or civil law - those parameters are already in place. Instead, Live and Let Live does indeed mean “one does not judge another as to the level of right and wrong,” as you have said. I have done my share of breaking civil law and have faced some fairly steep consequences, all of which I accepted - there was no option but to accept them. But morality is different. Every American citizen is bound by civil and common law. But not every citizen is governed by a Roman Catholic moral code, or a Christian moral code or any code at all. Some were not raised with religion, others have cast it aside. What seems a given to you may be totally foreign to the next person. Morality and the penal code are two different animals; as with apples and oranges, it is useless to compare them.

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

**elts 1956 and royal archer:

I have not said that “it is OK to kill a pre-natal baby” anywhere.

It makes absolutely no difference to me how others interpret my philosophy or moral code. It is no one’s business unless and until I break the law. Even then juries are seated to evaluate a crime and decide punishment - it is not a task for every single person on earth. royal archer, if you see someone “harming” me and you have the capacity to stop him or her, you will do what your conscience and your moral code dictate. If you intervened without my asking for help I would accept that. If you did not intervene, I would accept that. As for physics, I am trained enough to maneuver in this life but resent having had to learn difficult skills just to get along. With the exception of philosophy, astronomy and the like, as an artist I find the discipline of physics a total drag. I am grateful to those who are immersed in it, and equally grateful when any discoveries or inventions trickle down that make my life easier (though not necessarily simpler). So wherever else physics applies to my life today, if you look you will find frustration and resentment.

elts, I am not talking about a world without law. We are all held to the letter of the law of this land. Here we are talking about civil law and common law, a system of rules generally enforced through a set of institutions. I agree with you when you say, “This does not mean there should be no agreed upon law for protection of individuals and citizens.” Live and Let Live does not need to be applied to common or civil law - those parameters are already in place. Instead, Live and Let Live does indeed mean “one does not judge another as to the level of right and wrong,” as you have said. I have done my share of breaking civil law and have faced some fairly steep consequences, all of which I accepted - there was no option but to accept them. But morality is different. Every American citizen is bound by civil and common law. But not every citizen is governed by a Roman Catholic moral code, or a Christian moral code or any code at all. Some were not raised with religion, others have cast it aside. What seems a given to you may be totally foreign to the next person. Morality and the penal code are two different animals; as with apples and oranges, it is useless to compare them.

Limerick**

So if the law were changed to punish those who kill babies you would be 100% in support of that? Or at least equaly appathetic to it as you are to the current condition where laws against infantcide are surprressed by a supreme court ruling?

 

[AJTheMan]

Religion has no place in politics.

 

[royal_archer]

Religion has no place in politics.

Politics should have no place in the governance of the country.

 

[AJTheMan]

Politics should have no place in the governance of the country.

Anarchist?