NationStates Jolt Archive

No honest conservative could possibly belive that the government should have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.

The problem is THEIR ARE NO HONEST CONSERVATIVES

While I am personally very strongly against abortion, I am also against the federal government's meddling in the affairs of pregnant women.

Thats a hasty generalization, buddy. I think it'd be better to say there are no honest politicians, and leave it at that. :)

The government shouldn't enforce one view of morality.
The individual's right to choice is paramount.

Now, now, there aren't any honest Liberals. . .either. Lol.
But on topic, just because she doesn't want to carry on with pregnancy, I don't believe it gives her, or anyone, the right to kill the unborn child. The fact is, unless it was rape, no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place.

No honest conservative could possibly belive that the government should have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.
I dont think the government should interfere, but I dont think that abortion is very smart. Just give the kid up to an adoption agency for some happy barren couple. I dont see whats hard about that.
But, if they want an abortion, thats their decision.

Now, now, there aren't any honest Liberals. . .either. Lol.
But on topic, just because she doesn't want to carry on with pregnancy, I don't believe it gives her, or anyone, the right to kill the unborn child. The fact is, unless it was rape, no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place.

Jimmy Carter

problem is THEIR
Well finding an intelligent liberal is a feat.

IMO only person that would believe the original statement is a liberal, and they're the same people who would think being conservative is bad in the first place, so go ahead and don't consider us conservatives. :p

No honest conservative could possibly belive that the government should have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.

No honest conservative could possibly belive that the government should have the right to force a woman to raise a child against her will.

Legalize 28th term abortions! Liberals argue that there's no magic barrier that makes a third term abortion any worse than a second or first, so let's carry that logic to its conclusion: a 28th term abortion ought to be legal (for people missing the point here: a 28th term "fetus" would be 8 years old)

I wasnt under the impression that a fetus or zygote was a seperate living organism...

If you seperate a fetus or zygote from a pregnant woman's body, it does not function and is not a seperate living organism.

If a woman delivers an infant, it does function and is a seperate living organism.

There is a world of difference.

IMO only person that would believe the original statement is a liberal, and they're the same people who would think being conservative is bad in the first place, so go ahead and don't consider us conservatives. :p


Your personal attack is palpably revolting.


There is nothing wrong with honest conservatives, and nothing worse than religious fundementalists and wishy-washy pseudo-conservatives of the anti-abortion sort.

Jimmy Carter is the lapdog of the Democratic party... X p

Anyway, I think the government is obligated to save the child's life. If you are being robbed at gunpoint, and the guy decides to pull the trigger, I don't think you're going to be saying to yourself while the bullet draws closer,

"I may be getting shot, but it's fine as long as the government doesn't prevent this criminal from killing me and infringe on his civil rights!"

Uhh, no. No. Also, what's WORSE than the gov. making you have a baby is the gov. making you abort. In England, for example, the gov. forced a woman to abort one of her twins because there was a small chance that they would both die at birth (naturally, not through abortion). That is depriving the mother of her child, and is one of the most heinous of all crimes. :(

Your personal attack is palpably revolting.


There is nothing wrong with honest conservatives, and nothing worse than religous fundementalists and wishy-washy pseudo-conservatives of the anti-abortion sort.
Calling someone liberal is a personal attack?

Ok, if you want it to be :p

I wasnt under the impression that a fetus or zygote was a seperate living organism...

If you seperate a fetus or zygote from a pregnant woman's body, it does not function and is not a seperate living organism.

If a woman delivers an infant, it does function and is a seperate living organism.

There is a world of difference.

Part of the problem now is that improving medical technology is starting to change that. A premature 6-month birth can be saved by medical technology, does that not effect the line on abortion? What happens when/if medical technology allows a fetus to be raised outside the womb from the moment of conception?

No honest conservative could possibly belive that the government should have the right to force a woman to raise a child against her will.




I was unaware that there is a legal compulsion for women to raise their own children or a movement to establish one.


Perhaps that is because neither exist.

New Grenada-

Using your reasoning: Fetus can't survive by itself, so we can kill it.

When was the last time you saw an infant survive by itself?

If x can't survive by itself, we can kill it.
Babies cannot survive by themselves.
---------
We can kill babies.

Now, now, there aren't any honest Liberals. . .either. Lol.
But on topic, just because she doesn't want to carry on with pregnancy, I don't believe it gives her, or anyone, the right to kill the unborn child. The fact is, unless it was rape, no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place.

wow. how very narrow minded of you. i mean, lets say that the woman forgets to take one pill, ONE PILL, and she gets pregnant. lets make her pay for that mistake for the rest of her life! and by the way, we should have the death penalty for people that break the law, even if it is for something like stealing a chocolate bar or a book of matches.

Actually, honest conservatives will tell you that women do not have the right to choose murder. Even in the case of rape, abortion only punishes the victim, where the victim is the unborn child.

Part of the problem now is that improving medical technology is starting to change that. A premature 6-month birth can be saved by medical technology, does that not effect the line on abortion? What happens when/if medical technology allows a fetus to be raised outside the womb from the moment of conception?



Then abortion will be ended forever, and no one will complain but the people forced to live in an overpopulated country.


And taxpayers will have to foot the bill.

New Grenada-

Using your reasoning: Fetus can't survive by itself, so we can kill it.

When was the last time you saw an infant survive by itself?

If x can't survive by itself, we can kill it.
Babies cannot survive by themselves.
---------
We can kill babies.


The vast majority of infants survive having their umbilical cords cut.

Your example is bogus, poorly concieved bunk.

Grenada-- where tf do you live?
Have you ever heard of child support? (a legal obligation to money to a custodial parent for raising of one's biological children)
Or Child abuse? (the harming of one's child through action or neglect- as in not feeding one's child)

Unless a child is given up for adoption, there is a legal compulsion to raise your children.

QED.

The government shouldn't enforce one view of morality.
The individual's right to choice is paramount.
Myrth, what aboutthose who believe a 11 year old boy is of the age to consent for sex.
Those who believe it is morally correct to mutilated the genitals of their female children.
Those believe in the execution of heir children should they be deformed or handicapped in some other way.
The government is obligated to enforce morality, because morality is not a static list.
It is relative, society needs the Government to lay down moral laws.
I agree with choice-but Governed morality is an imperative.

Unless a child is given up for adoption, there is a legal compulsion to raise your children.



And there is no law preventing people from giving their kids up for adoption.
There is no law compelling a woman to maintain legal custody of her child or raise it.

I am against abortion, but until birth control is compulsory or free and is culturally accepted (so that people wouldn't feel embarrassed about going up to someone and asking for a 200 pack of condoms or something) then we need to have abortion remain legal. Or how about this? Abortion can only be legal to prevent motherly death, or before the point that the fetus can feel pain.

Fair enough? Fetus feels no pain? That would allow for 75% of abortions to continue, as in 75% of the cases, the fetus is too underdeveloped to feel any pain.

I agree, there's no law preventing you from giving up your child for adoption. If you don't want to raise a child, give it up for adoption.

There's also no law preventing you from using a contraceptive, so use a contraceptive and don't kill an organism that has its own heartbeat, brain activity, blood type, etc...

If you don't want to have a kid, use contraceptives.

Comandante, sorry... but if the reason you're getting knocked up (or knocking up your g/f) is because you're too embarassed to buy condoms (or get them for free from -many- organizations that distribute them), you shouldn't take a dick out of a pair of pants for anything other than pissing.

Anyone in favor of a legal compulsion for women to carry pregnencies must, to retain integrity, meet two qualifications:
1) Individual must have adopted a child
2) Individual must actively distribute contraceptives among groups with the highest likelihood of becoming pregnant and then having an abortion performed.

If these two conditions are not met, I do not believe a proponent of government-compelled pregnency has the personal responsibility to be in the position to dictate to others.

wow. how very narrow minded of you. i mean, lets say that the woman forgets to take one pill, ONE PILL, and she gets pregnant. lets make her pay for that mistake for the rest of her life! and by the way, we should have the death penalty for people that break the law, even if it is for something like stealing a chocolate bar or a book of matches.
How about if the said woman excercises a little control over her body, say, she doesn't open her legs everytime she feels a twinge between them, then she won't have to dominate another helpless body and destroy it because she is too selfish to have her life "interrupted" by the intruder[spelled infant, baby, young human being].

That "fetus" which she is "aborting" is a human being. It will always be a human being. It is not a dog or a fish or a petunia, it is the crown of creation. When a woman becomes pregnant, it is a new life and NOT an extension of her body. It is in absolute dependence upon her body and that is why she must be careful with it.

In the case of rape and incest, it is still not the child's fault. Who knows what sort of great man or woman he or she may grow up to be in the hands of a loving mother?

Why does someone have to adopt a child in order to be opposed to abortion?

wow. how very narrow minded of you. i mean, lets say that the woman forgets to take one pill, ONE PILL, and she gets pregnant. lets make her pay for that mistake for the rest of her life! and by the way, we should have the death penalty for people that break the law, even if it is for something like stealing a chocolate bar or a book of matches.

I see your point, but if she does not want to lose her entire life, then put it up for adoption. They shouldn't kill the unborn child. I suppose that you would need to understand my point of view. I'm not even a christian, but I believe that life begins at conception and taking a life just because you don't want to get fat is murder. You don't need to agree with me, and you probobly wont because this topic has no clear answer.

Hooray for hypocrisy!

If you're arguing that abortion is about personal choice, why on earth would you want to make an argument that people must meet inane requirements to make a decision about an issue?

I think any proponent of abortion should have to volunteer to counsel post-procedure non-mothers, actively contribute to disposal of biological wastes from hopsitals, and pay for abortions for those who cannot afford them.

Why does someone have to adopt a child in order to be opposed to abortion?

I think the implication was that in order to have the moral right to condemn abortion, one must be active in the propagation of the alternatives that are often mentioned, i.e. adoption and contraceptives.

Seeing as this topic more or less swung toward abortions I must comment.

First, under no circumstances does ANY ONE have the right to tell me I HAVE to have my child. NO ONE is going to make me have a child I do not want regardless of the circumstances in which the baby was created.

Second, rape aside, there are times when people make mistakes; when people think they are capable of raising children until they become pregnant. Is it fair to the child to be raised in an environment in which the parents are unable to provide for it? You will say adoption.....but I will tell you there is no way in hell I am giving up a child I solely held in my womb for nine mouths and squeezed the hell out of me to give it birth. I would never be able to part with my child once it is out of me, but I will be able to part with it if it is inside of me. After all, I did unwillingly part with two of my children already.

Third, what happens in the case that the baby has a genetic disorder that will make it "retarded" or something to that nature? We know the child is going to face a cruel and horrible future; children naturally are cruel to one another whether we want to believe it or not. Again, is it fair to bring the child into a lifetime of embarrasment and pain?

And finally, what if giving birth to the baby is going to kill the mother? Is it fair for the baby to grow up without a mother? I mean, after all, I would not want my child raised without me. And face it, men cannot breast feed. ;) Sorry men, you make good daddies, just cannot give your children some things they need. And I know there is formulas and such, but breast feeding is really so much better for the baby.

With that said, I am pro-choice. If a woman does not want her child, NO ONE should force her to have it.

:D

Pro lifer here. My $.02.

The government should have no business either way on the matter of abortion. It is a moral, not governmental, choice. That being said, I find the act horrifying that we would take the life of the most innocent and helpless of our society. If you want to do that, go ahead. I don't have to answer for your actions. That being said...don't make my tax dollars pay for your decision to do so. Just as I chose to fix myself to never have children, I did it on my own dime.

Abortion should not be legal, or illegal. You want it, you pay for it.

No honest conservative would be against abortion and no honest liberal would be for gun-control.

Political orientation is as much social as it is politics. Maybe even more. Labels only work in grocery stores.

Fair enough? Fetus feels no pain? That would allow for 75% of abortions to continue, as in 75% of the cases, the fetus is too underdeveloped to feel any pain.
Fetus feels no pain? Obviously you don't feel any pain -- you know the saying "No brain ..."

The fetus most CERTAINLY feels pain. It's been proven that even the most "insignificant" life forms flee from pain and do everything to survive.

Even if you gave the "fetus" (which is only Latin for baby) a numbing drug to kill the pain that is supposedly doesn't even feel in the first place, it doesn't make killing a human being right. It is murder, and everyone who has ever had an abortion or performed an abortion is guilty of murder.

The only POSSIBLE excuse that could be made would be for "self defense" though that would be hard to prove and knowing the way wicked people think, it wouldn't be anytime before "self defense" would include "messing up my social life". So the only logical and good conclusion is to make it all illegal, and whoever lives is who is supposed to live.

Right, wrong or indifferent, I believe the reality is that the abortion laws in America will never be changed. I see this as a conservative issue, but not a republican one. As a republican, I choose to fight battles that can be won and choose not to die on this political hill. A candidate's position on abortion has no bearing on my vote. This is among the ways to differentiate between a republican and a conservative. This is a republican issue only in that it is one law imposed from on high universally regardless of the state and district voter's opinion. To outlaw abortion would be to impose one view unilaterally on the entire society, something which a "republican" would find to be unacceptable, regardless of the issue. But one which many "conservatives" apparently do accept.

Pro lifer here. My $.02.

The government should have no business either way on the matter of abortion. It is a moral, not governmental, choice. That being said, I find the act horrifying that we would take the life of the most innocent and helpless of our society. If you want to do that, go ahead. I don't have to answer for your actions. That being said...don't make my tax dollars pay for your decision to do so. Just as I chose to fix myself to never have children, I did it on my own dime.

Abortion should not be legal, or illegal. You want it, you pay for it.

Completely agreed. But it's the fact that people who don't agree with abortion are nonetheless being compelled to pay for it by the federal government that is the true travesty of abortion from this republican's perspective.

Pro lifer here. My $.02.

The government should have no business either way on the matter of abortion. It is a moral, not governmental, choice. That being said, I find the act horrifying that we would take the life of the most innocent and helpless of our society. If you want to do that, go ahead. I don't have to answer for your actions. That being said...don't make my tax dollars pay for your decision to do so. Just as I chose to fix myself to never have children, I did it on my own dime.

Abortion should not be legal, or illegal. You want it, you pay for it.

The best post on this entire thread. I completely agree. If you want to kill your babies, go on ahead. Your baby means absolutely nothing to me, so go on and kill the little b@stard if you want to. Just don't take my money for you to do so!

Well, now I'm just repeating what I quoted . . . so I'll end this now.

Abortion should not be legal, or illegal. You want it, you pay for it.


Something is *either* legal *or* illegal.
It is an absolute dichotomy, something can be neither both nor neither.

Why does someone have to adopt a child in order to be opposed to abortion?


Because if you do not have the wherewithall to take personal responsibility for what you want to force others to do, you are a base fellow of no integrity.