If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?

[Dale_M]

Basically personhood starts the day the Mother decides she doesnt want to kill her child.

I’m not sure that is true. Not every woman who has an early miscarriage mourns for a lost child - I’m not even sure that the majority of them do.

For those who might want to kill their child personhood does not begin until the child fully exits the womb.

Certainly a woman would not pursue an abortion if she thought of her fetus as a person. But your statement ignores those women who might want an abortion, but who decide that they are too late in the pregnancy for it.

I think there is a middle ground between your two extremes. Most Americans see personhood as occurring somewhere in the middle of pregnancy - its why support for first trimester abortion is so high, but that support drops significantly when. I don’t think we have as a culture have a good grasp at when that precise moment of personhood occurs.

 

[Dale_M]

a_cermak:

I’ve acted as escort twice for women getting abortions.

I’m sorry, but that makes you an acsessory to murder. Murder is strictly prohibited by the Torrah.

Chris, abortion is not considered murder in the United States. I know the Catholic Church considers abortion to be murder, but it also considers the consecrated host to be the actual body of Christ. Religious beliefs are not the same as law.

a_cermak:

Now, after viability, I would frown on abortion because a Caesarian is or should be available for her leaving both parties in decent condition.

Why? Would abortion be wrong for some reason? I thought you reject natural law?

I don’t see what her statement has to do with natural law. It seems very clearly related to personhood. I would say that if the fetus is viable outside the womb, it is a person without dispute.

 

[mapleoak]

Chris, abortion is not considered murder in the United States.

Sure it is. I consider it murder. We are also pushing for legislation to protect the unborn from murder.

I know the Catholic Church considers abortion to be murder, but it also considers the consecrated host to be the actual body of Christ. Religious beliefs are not the same as law.

And something either is or isn’t, not based on whether it is considered to be or not.

 

[beeliner]

1. What a silly thing to say. Obviously her daughter wasn’t practicing abstinence.
2. It’s funny how when it was revealed John Edwards had a illegitimate child no one started criticizing him for preaching safe sex and contraception. After all here is a man who knew everything there was to know about birth control and and thought that it should be taught in our schools from sixth grade up. Guess he could use some abstinence education, couldn’t he
3. So you think she should get an abortion ? Bet that would increase Governor Palin’s Palen’s popularity with the Democratic Party.

1. Obviously. Nor was he. I thought that was what I said. So why is that silly?
2. Why is that funny? Jefferson, Cleveland, L. B. Johnson, and probably several other US presidents had illegitimate children. I’m not completely sure, but I believe that all of those mothers were adults. Also, wasn’t governor (governess?) Palin herself pregnant at the time of her marriage? I read that somewhere, I’m not sure it’s true so I’m just asking.
3. And you think that I think that why? Of course I think that they should have remained chaste. If they were unwilling to do so, they should have used a reliable method of birth control.

You are like the rest of the hypocrites on this thread, bob. You think that you have the whole truth, and no one else is even entitled to an opinion. Life is not that simple.

 

[mapleoak]

I don’t see what her statement has to do with natural law. It seems very clearly related to personhood. I would say that if the fetus is viable outside the womb, it is a person without dispute.

Because natural law would be opposed to causing someone to be left in an undecent condition. Since natural law is being rejected, what basis would she have for making such a statement?

 

[mapleoak]

1. Why is that funny? Jefferson, Cleveland, L. B. Johnson, and probably several other US presidents had illegitimate children.

It’s funny because certain people get condemned for immoral actions which are considered a non-issue when others commit same actions. True morality holds something to be either right or wrong no matter who is culpable for the action. In such cases as pointed out, suddenly the media somehow becomes the harbinger of truth. Funny isn’t it?

 

[mapleoak]

You are like the rest of the hypocrites on this thread, bob. You think that you have the whole truth, and no one else is even entitled to an opinion. Life is not that simple.

In what way is he holding himself to a lower standard than what he is holding the rest of us to?

 

[Dale_M]

Sure it is. I consider it murder.

Very well, but your beliefs are not law.

And something either is or isn’t, not based on whether it is considered to be or not.

But in the case of religious beliefs, whose beliefs are correct in the eyes of the law? Yours? Some guy in the next town? Majority vote?

Since natural law is being rejected, what basis would she have for making such a statement?

She may disagree with me, but her statement was consistent with the view that a viable fetus is a person, and entitled to life.

 

[mapleoak]

Very well, but your beliefs are not law.

You didn’t state that abortion was legal in the U.S. You stated that abortion was not considered murder, to which I objected. I further stated we are going to get the legal status changed and further push for prosecution the same as with any other form of murder.

But in the case of religious beliefs, whose beliefs are correct in the eyes of the law? Yours? Some guy in the next town? Majority vote?

The law is most certainly not absolute, as evidenced by the very fact that it is subject to change. In fact anything not based on absolute morality is subject to change. If you choose to put blind obedience and faith in the law, It is pitiable indeed.

She may disagree with me, but her statement was consistent with the view that a viable fetus is a person, and entitled to life.

I think you missed the part where she states that it is not entitled to life because to live would mean she is enslaved. Personhood having nothing to do with it.

 

[a_cermak]

Because natural law would be opposed to causing someone to be left in an undecent condition. Since natural law is being rejected, what basis would she have for making such a statement?

Because my reason for supporting abortion is that I reject making a woman involuntarily carry a child. Once a Caesarian is possible, it renders that problem irrelevant, because a C-section can be performed and the child can be saved. If the child can be saved, I see no reason not to save it. If the child can’t be saved, such as in the most common form of abortion, first trimester, then there is no point in trying to save it and instead the safest manner of extraction should be used for the woman.

 

[fix]

Because my reason for supporting abortion is that I reject making a woman involuntarily carry a child. Once a Caesarian is possible, it renders that problem irrelevant, because a C-section can be performed and the child can be saved. If the child can be saved, I see no reason not to save it. If the child can’t be saved, such as in the most common form of abortion, first trimester, then there is no point in trying to save it and instead the safest manner of extraction should be used for the woman.

What a strange way to view life. The innocent child should be involuntarily executed?

 

[fix]

You are like the rest of the hypocrites on this thread, bob. You think that you have the whole truth, and no one else is even entitled to an opinion. Life is not that simple.

So, because life is not “simple” that means we get be be unprincipled?

Why is it some think because a moral decision is difficult they may act wrongly? Is the act of discerning how to behave enough, in and of itself, even though in the end we act wrongly? Like saying gee that is really a hard choice, I really stressed over it, then I acted. Therefore, my choice is good and acceptable simply because I struggled with it.

 

[mapleoak]

Because my reason for supporting abortion is that I reject making a woman involuntarily carry a child. Once a Caesarian is possible, it renders that problem irrelevant, because a C-section can be performed and the child can be saved.

Questioning to the void. Using micky mouse logic, why should a woman be forced to endure being cut open?

If the child can be saved, I see no reason not to save it. If the child can’t be saved, such as in the most common form of abortion, first trimester, then there is no point in trying to save it and instead the safest manner of extraction should be used for the woman.

The baby doesn’t need to be saved since it is not in danger - unless someone is trying to kill it.

 

[Janet_S]

I know the Catholic Church considers abortion to be murder, but it also considers the consecrated host to be the actual body of Christ. Religious beliefs are not the same as law.

It’s not the same thing. The Church recognizes that the fetus is a human being, but any rational person should come to the same conclusion. The fact that a fetus is a human being can be discovered purely by natural means without religion even entering the picture.

The Church’s position is rational while the pro-choice position is irrational. Is a unborn fetus a human being or not? If it’s not, what is it? Is it a human sometimes, when it’s wanted, and then no longer a human, when it’s unwanted? Why does anyone else’s opinions or beliefs alter its essence?

Pro-choicers talk of “personhood,” but this is only a PC manipulation of words to justify killing for the sake of expedience. People have good reasons to terminate a pregnancy, but they also have good reasons to kill a spouse. Good reasons don’t justify every moral action.

The Church isn’t the only voice standing up for the rights of unborn. We stand alongside Jews, Muslims, and even atheists when it comes to protecting the unborn. So to say it’s a matter of religion is wrong. It’s a matter of common sense.

 

[marietta]

The Church isn’t the only voice standing up for the rights of unborn. We stand alongside Jews, Muslims, and even atheists when it comes to protecting the unborn. So to say it’s a matter of religion is wrong. It’s a matter of common sense.

You stand alogside SOME Jews, SOME Muslims, and even SOME atheists when it comes to protecting the unborn.

It is not a matter of “common sense”. It is a matter of individual conscience.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

And bank robbery?

marietta

Beats me. I don’t even know what the bank robbery analogy is.

 

[estesbob]

What were your responsibilities in the slaughter house?

marietta

Worked my way up from shoveling guts to shooting pigs. A very interesting way for one to work themselves through college!

 

[estesbob]

I got to tour a slaughter house on one of my many, many trips from the farm to the stockyard. Even got to operate the air slug!

Problem with the air slug is on very rare occasions it would only knock the cattle out. When you opened this side of the killing pen and they woke up they tended to very cross. Iit always made for an exciting few minutes.

You had use of air slug ,however, or the FDA would not allow you to use the head.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not sure that is true. Not every woman who has an early miscarriage mourns for a lost child - I’m not even sure that the majority of them do.

Certainly a woman would not pursue an abortion if she thought of her fetus as a person. But your statement ignores those women who might want an abortion, but who decide that they are too late in the pregnancy for it.

I think there is a middle ground between your two extremes. Most Americans see personhood as occurring somewhere in the middle of pregnancy - its why support for first trimester abortion is so high, but that support drops significantly when. I don’t think we have as a culture have a good grasp at when that precise moment of personhood occurs.

There is no middle ground. Either the child is killed, or is it not. Either you support the mother’s right to kill her child or you don’t.

 

[mapleoak]

It is not a matter of “common sense”. It is a matter of individual conscience.

One cannot reject science (a human being is a human being from conception) on theological grounds by saying nonsense such as it is not a person, and then turn around and reject that by claiming personhood is a theological or religious argument.