choopie911 wrote: TruePaintballer wrote: Right to abortion? What about right to live! Conservatives are gonna turn this country around to something much better than what we have now So you think if a guy rapes a woman, she should HAVE to raise her rapists child. That's deffinitly the right thing.

one of my friends is a product of your scenario... he was put up for adopotion and he is perfectly fine. If abortion was used in that case he wouldn't be alive. No matter how you cut the line life is life and should not be taken away for any circumstance

I have said my opinions you have said yours.

People don't usually change their minds about their opinions about politics, so there is no use to fight about. So I am done arguing back and forth.

I am not against **edited** Union, but **edited** Marriage should be outlawed. The traditional definition of Marriage should stay one male one female. I don't care to give them benefits and such, just no Marriage title and thats the general idea of the COnservatives, something I don't think is too outlandish.

TruePaintballer wrote: I am not against **edited** Union, but **edited** Marriage should be outlawed. The traditional definition of Marriage should stay one male one female. I don't care to give them benefits and such, just no Marriage title and thats the general idea of the COnservatives, something I don't think is too outlandish.

This is the lamest of all positions on this point.

You are saying that it is ok for homosexuals to get all the legal benefits of marriage, but we need a law just to limit the use of a particular WORD? 

You aren't worried about what the homosexuals do in the bedroom, how many children they raise, or any of that - but boy, if they touch our WORD, that's it! 

That makes absolutely no sense.

Many of the forumers act like that is the only reason, such as a form of birth control, that abortions exist. The fact is, there are hundreds of reasons that people have abortions, and this issue isn't as simple as "it's a person's life, live with the mistake."

I propose two dimensions of gray:

First, the moral status of the fetus.  Strong pro-life advocates claim that it is a human life, and abortion is therefore murder.  Strong pro-choice advocates claim that it is merely a bundle of cells, and is entitled to no moral protection whatsoever.

I find both positions insufficient.  I know nobody who would casually have an abortion with no moral qualms (I'm sure they exist, but I am also sure they are a tiny minority).  Similarly, if most people felt that fetus=human, abortion=murder, our laws would look a lot different today.  Most people realize that there is a gray zone.

Different lives have different moral value.  Cats and dogs and cows are moral objects just like fetuses - we all agree that we shouldn't torture cats, and we have "humane" slaughter methods for cow - yet we kill the cows and euthanize the cats all the same.  They have moral value, but different moral value than humans.

Similarly, not all humans have equal moral value.  Given a choice between saving the man or the woman from the burning building, I suspect most would save the woman.  In that situation, the woman has a higher moral value.  The innocent women and children in the Pakistani village that was bombed last week were deemed less morally valuable than other humans, for a variety of reasons.

Moral value is different for different moral objects, and that moral value can change depending on circumstances.  To claim to morally equate all human life is simply inconsistent with how the human race operates.

Moreover, it is inconsistent with many of the arguments raised surrounding abortion - many people will decry abortion as murder, even as they allow for exceptions for rape/incest/whatever.  If abortion truly is murder, why would we allow it for rape?  This is a self-defeating position.  If the position is that abortion is murder because of a black/white view of moral value of human life, then no other consideration should be admissable.

Second gray zone - the impact on the mother, the father, the family, the society.  The variation here is tremendous.  Simply referring to "the health or life of the mother" is childishly simplistic.  There are a variety of health risks associated with pregnancy, ranging from mild discomfort to death, and touching all points in between.  The social impacts can be just as severe.  In the right (wrong) context, visible pregnancy could doom the mother to a lifetime of poverty as a social outcast.  For others again, it is a mere inconvenience.

The same holds true with child-rearing, with foster homes and adoption.  For some it is no problem, for others it is a life-changing event.

One size does not fit all.  Abortion is an incredibly complex issue.

Jim Paint wrote: But the reason I would allow abortion after rape is because its a compromise, and those are kind of important when theres more than one view.

Agreed - but would you make the same "compromise" in the case of regular murder?  We agree that I shouldn't be allowed to casually kill your sister.  Is it a good compromise that I should be allowed to kill your sister if your dad was a meanie?

The reality is that we all apply different rules to the born than we do to the unborn.  Trying to apply murder laws to abortions is just inconsistent.

There is no good reason to ban homosexual marriage.

Not one.

Whazuuup! wrote: ...they are participating in society's continuation by having and raising kids (it's assumed that's what you do when you get married. I know there are some exceptions, but the vast majority of married couples are also parents).

Presumed by whom?

Your argument fails for many, many reasons.  Here are a few:

1.  You have no basis for your claim that marriage has any "purpose" at all.

2.  Even marriage has a "purpose", you have no basis for your claim that that purpose is having children.

3.  Approximately 1/3 children in the US are born out of wedlock.  Apparently marriage isn't required to have children.

4.  Straight people who are physically unable to have children can still marry.

5.  Straight people who simply declare that they are unwilling to have children can still marry.

6.  Straight married people are allowed to use birth control and have abortions.

7.  Many abortions are indeed performed on married women, and most married people do in fact use birth control of some kind.

8.  Most of the legal benefits granted to married couples have nothing to do with children, and are equally available to married couples without children.

9.  There are legal benefits for those with children regardless of whether they are married.

10.  There are some legal benefits only for those with children who are specifically NOT married.

Any claim that the legal purpose of marriage is procreation is at best unfounded.  That, and it contradicts the available evidence.

Jim Paint wrote: Isn't it inconsistent to say that a regular murder would have backers saying it was alright? The population is split on abortion, but only a select few would say murder is alright in any way.

I'm not entirely sure I got your point, but yes - some people will think that "regular" murder is not a problem.

Even the morality of murder has some shades of gray, but some shades are grayer than others.  The "murder-backers" are the outliers - there appears to be a clear consensus that abortion and murder are not the same.  Many people believe they are very similar, but I don't think many people, upon introspection, would literally hold to the "same" part.

Clark Kent wrote: Whazuuup! wrote: ...they are participating in society's continuation by having and raising kids (it's assumed that's what you do when you get married. I know there are some exceptions, but the vast majority of married couples are also parents). Presumed by whom? Your argument fails for many, many reasons.  Here are a few: 1.  You have no basis for your claim that marriage has any "purpose" at all. Why do I need a basis to say that marrige has a purpose. It's obvious. Otherwise nobody would get married. 2.  Even marriage has a "purpose", you have no basis for your claim that that purpose is having children. I'll just say the Bible is my basis. You wouldn't understand. 3.  Approximately 1/3 children in the US are born out of wedlock.  Apparently marriage isn't required to have children. No, marrige isn't required. Having childern has a bit more to do with Biology, but good moral people (2/3.... higher than I thought!) wait till they're married. Married and Children go together. 4.  Straight people who are physically unable to have children can still marry. Like I said oringinally, not a large percentage by any means, and they can adopt. 5.  Straight people who simply declare that they are unwilling to have children can still marry. Well they can adopt, and contribute by raising childern with good moral standings. 6.  Straight married people are allowed to use birth control and have abortions. Well they shouldn't be..... but I'm not gonna start the abortion debate also. I'll stick with edited marrige. 7.  Many abortions are indeed performed on married women, and most married people do in fact use birth control of some kind. Again... shouldn't happen. 8.  Most of the legal benefits granted to married couples have nothing to do with children, and are equally available to married couples without children. They don't have to do with children, but instead are because of the children-making-factor. 9.  There are legal benefits for those with children regardless of whether they are married. 10.  There are some legal benefits only for those with children who are specifically NOT married. Hmm.... didn't know those. You got me. Any claim that the legal purpose of marriage is procreation is at best unfounded.  That, and it contradicts the available evidence. The purpose of marrige is babies. Marrige is to babies as Milk is to cookies.

Later....

Rather than creating quote-within headaches...

Responding to the responses to my numbered points by Wazzup:

1.  "Obvious" is code for "I can't prove it".  I agree that individual couples have one or more purposes for getting married - going from there to claiming that marriage itself has a "purpose" is another thing altogether.  People get married for a variety of reasons.  100 different couples = 100 different purposes. 

2.  The Bible - I would indeed understand.  I have read it, cover to cover, every verse, twice.  I wonder how many devout Christians can say the same.  I also understand that the Bible cannot be foundation for laws in this country.  It may legitimately be sufficient foundation for your personal beliefs, but that is as far as that will go.

3.  Even as you acknowledge that biology comes into the mix, you continue to insist that children and marriage go together, without any backing.  It "just is", is that your position?

4.  Yet you back off right away - the infertile get an exemption from the child thing?  Just because there are few of them?  Well, there aren't that many **edited** couples either - maybe ten percent - and they can also adopt.  I think you just made an excellent argument FOR **edited** marriage.

5.  Same.  In fact, since homosexual couples are MORE likely to adopt than add another hungry mouth of their own, I would suggest that they, as a group, might be MORE valuable to society than straight couples.  And, since homosexuals tend to have more money than straight folk, they will likely be in a better position to provide well for their children.

6-7.  Unclear whether you are saying that married folk shouldn't be having abortions or shouldn't be using birth control.  But that doesn't matter - society permits it.  By your theory, birth control should ONLY be allowed for the unwed, no?

8.  You again declare that legal benefits are due to the potential children.  On what do you base this?  You don't even know what benefits we are discussing, I'm guessing.  And even so - by what rationale should a pair of 80-year-old newlyweds be entitled to ANY benefits if those benefits have anything to do with children?  And, since homosexual couples do in fact adopt, should not those children be entitled to those same benefits?  Why are you punishing the children?

9-10.  I see you have no rebuttal.

Bottom line - our social and legal structure directly opposes your unfounded claim that the "purpose" of marriage is to have children.  This is because your claim is false.

As a religious belief you are welcome to hold to your view, but that is all it is - a religious belief.  And, since we live in the US and/or Canada, your religious beliefs are irrelevant for purposes of laws and public policy.

Mainly, though, I'm amused at the thought of the people that moved to Canada to get away from George Bush.

:)

Ruh-roh!  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11057794/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11057794/

Those warmongering conservatives are at it again!

Somehow this amuses me greatly.

I think abortion should be illegal.  Because when people say "It's the womans body she can do what she wants to it."  The baby has different DNA so therefore it is not part of the mothers body.BUT in cases of rape or if bearing the baby will cause great harm or death to the mother she has a choice.  In cases of insest it should become a matter of the state and they have to have an abortion.

Fine we will let the baby decide.........

No wait it can't.