response 19 of 254:

Mar 7 17:58 UTC 2006

re #16
You're asking a Jesus freak about mental health concerns?

response 21 of 254:

Mar 7 18:01 UTC 2006

i like mooncat's response to klingon, because it expresses my basic sentiment
fairly accurately, is written better than i could write it, is probably more
reasonable than i would write it, and, uh, comes from, uh, a source that
people aren't so quick to dismiss!

response 23 of 254:

Mar 7 18:05 UTC 2006

resp:19 Point...

response 25 of 254:

Mar 7 18:20 UTC 2006

The reason rape and incest and other such things generally are 
considered is because there are a lot of people who believe that 
pregnancy is the punishment for a woman having sex and they dont 
believe she should be punished if she was raped. 

response 27 of 254:

Mar 7 18:22 UTC 2006

Thank god, another abortion item!  We haven't had enough of them.  Any,
I've already posted my reasoning for why I think that, if you're going
to be pro-life, you can't permit abortion in the case of rape or incest
unless your real motive is anti-slut.

Re #11: Sounds like you disagree with the fact that this law does allow
the state to commit "infanticide" (which is really embrocide or
fetuscide) in some cases, such as when the mother's life is in danger.
The state also permits infanticide in other cases (for actual infants),
such as separating conjoined twins even if that condemns one of them to
death.  Not sure how you (or other pro-lifers) feel about that.

response 29 of 254:

Mar 7 18:39 UTC 2006

Also when a woman has a miscarriage, what is that?  A spontaneous abortion.If
nature causes abortions on its own, how is it wrong for women to?  If abortion
were illegal, a woman could down half a bottle of scotch and a bottle of
aspirin, go into convulsions and miscarry.  This is the sort of thing that
happened all the time when abortion was illegal.  You can't make a woman have
a baby if she REALLY doesn't want to have it.

response 31 of 254:

Mar 7 18:47 UTC 2006

Re #15: My point was that your saying that "a woman pregnant against her will
isn't secure in her person" has nothing to do with it unless the state forcibly
impregnated her.

Re #16: No. I just think that two wrongs don't make a right. Hating someone --
born or unborn -- doesn't give you the right to have them die.

Re #27: I dither on cases where it's the mother's life or the infant's life.
Cases of the "mother's health" exception are "taking one life to save another"
and are possibly the best of two bad options, but I'm not sure. The one case
where I think abortion should be allowed is if both mother and child would die
if not performed but the mother would live if it were.

Re #29: Nature also causes all sorts of violent deaths for adults. Is murder
then justified?

response 33 of 254:

Mar 7 18:56 UTC 2006

re resp:18: I don't favor exceptions for rape or incest.  I don't think 
it is right to give the fetus the death penalty because of who his 
parents are or what they did.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

---
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place 
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
---

I don't think a pregnancy is an "unreasonable search or seizure", 
regardless of whether the baby is wanted or not wanted.

I share resp:27's enthusiasm for another abortion item.  We mustn't 
take the chance that any of us has anything to say on the subject which 
we haven't said in the other 20 abortion items.

response 35 of 254:

Mar 7 18:59 UTC 2006

Yeah.

Twice.

response 37 of 254:

Mar 7 19:12 UTC 2006

Re. 29:  Are you an idiot?  Nature does plenty of things people shouldn't do.
I think abortions should be allowed (though I'm personally EXTREMELY
uncomfortable with them), but it has nothing to do with you making silly
posts.

Try to think through your arguments before you make them.  Otherwise you just
embarrass yourself.

response 39 of 254:

Mar 7 21:13 UTC 2006

in fact, contary to jep evidently, I think we have the right to be secure in
our persons regardless of whether we are being robbed or not.

response 41 of 254:

Mar 7 21:33 UTC 2006

#40, I was saying we have a right to be secure NOT ONLY when we are getting
robbed, but also during the course of our regular lives as citizens.  A
criminal act need not kick in to be able to assert our right to be secur ein
our persons

response 43 of 254:

Mar 7 22:13 UTC 2006

many of those countries are fundamentalist islamic nations where women are
treated as property of the men.  why would saudi arabia allow abortions when
they don't allow women to vote, or get divorces or even DRIVE?