|
Do you really think that the so-called pro-lifers give a damn about the deaths caused by those that have unsafe abortions, NEVER, their priority is to force onto society their own beliefs. Sadly much of this pro-life anti abortion activity is driven by personal religious beliefs. NO-ONE is ever forcing these pro-lifers to have an abortion, the decision not to is something they have to decide for themselves, it's just a pity that others are not credited with the ability and right to make decisions concerning their own lives Complete DITTO. unfortunately, michaelll, u are absolutely right. sadly so, the view u brought 2light is absolutely clear ... it's just a pity that others are not credited with the ability and right to make decisions concerning their own livesTheir own lives - that's really where the debate lies, isn't it? Who's to say that when a women chooses to have an abortion, she is affecting only her life? After all, whether you believe a fetus (developing baby) is a human being or not, undeniably if all goes well, it will become a human being. And one human being can change the world for the better. What if a "fetus" who would have become a person who could've cured cancer (thus saving the lives of millions) gets aborted? Ladies and gentlemen, I think that some woman just made a decision that will effect all of our lives. Hi, jstates1, i agree entirely that if left alone a fetus will develop into a human being. One human being can also change the world for the worse what if this fetus became a mass murderer If one is in the pro-life camp as opposed to the pro-choice camp then those pro-life ideals should apply to all life ,not just unborn babies. As i said much of the pro-life debate is down to personal religious beliefs which are spurred on to a great extent by the religious right. These right pro-lifers who are so set against abortion, the taking of another human life as they say, are the very same ones who in NO small part got G W Bush re-elected knowing "full well" that his actions have and still do result in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. Where was there pro-life stance then. In all the times i have entered the debate over abortion i ... One human being can also change the world for the worseBy this logic, we all ought to be considered guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. Just as we give people a legal benefit of the doubt, so should we do for our unborn children. Upbringing has a lot to do with how they will turn out. Hmmm, Those two comments were put as an indication that what may or may not be is not a sound basis for any particular stance on the subject. i was hoping for your comments on the second part of my post we all ought to be considered guilty until proven innocentWell, according to the MCA 2006 etc, we already are. Just ask the folks in Guantanamo. Anyway, back to the topic... If people are truly pro-life, they will care about the thousands of children dying every day from preventable disease, wars and hunger around the world and use their eagerness to fight for the rescue of the innocent, for the rescue of children who are HERE NOW. They may just as well have the cure for cancer within them as the foetuses. (Ha ha! That sounded funny. Anyway...) When these children are taken care of, then I will consider the need to save a blob of cells that if born unwanted into this world... Banning abortions are not doing either God or man any favours. All you'll end up with is unwanted abandoned newborns being found in dumpters, in shallow graves and on cold restroom floors. You'll get teenage mothers with screwed up futures, dead women from infections caused by illegal abortion procedures and children already born orphaned when these mothers die. Is that pro-life? Not in my opinion. For the respect of life, abortion should not be banned. Upon seeing the photos of Graeme Frost and his sister, (Graeme is the child spokesperson recently in the news for the SCHIP insurance plan) the first thing that came to my mind was "Where are the right to lifers and their do-good notions" in this innocent family's hour of need? These are kids who UNDOUBTABLY have a "right to life" and would be denied if it were not for the SCHIP insurance. Why aren't they storming the White House on the behalf of children such as Graeme? I'm not trying to distract from the discussion of a woman's choice to choose, which I wholly support, but rather felt it was an obvious recent failure of inconsistency in the right to life argument worth pointing out. I should clarify that I am referencing the after ER trauma care intensive care pictures of the two children. jstates, according to your scriptures we are guilty. Were you forgetting about original sin and the doctrine that "all have fallen short"? The big problem I have with so many people who oppose abortion is that, for a lot of them, their concern ceases once the umbilical cord is cut. There is a rank inconsistency involved when you have people who are willing to shoot doctors or bomb clinics (a small but noisome minority, I know), deny rape victims emergency contraception (a larger minority), deny all use of contraception (a much larger group) or support the death penalty over life without parole and still call themselves "pro-life". Don't even think about bringing up Terry Schiavo - that was sheer political grandstanding. @ thisnamecantbetaken: Overpopulation, stretched resources, etc.Overpopulation? Stretched resources? In 2000, in grains alone there was enough food produced to feed the entire human population for two years. That's not counting fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, dairy, etc. I wrote a research paper on world hunger and the issues accompanying it. One in ten human beings will go to bed tonight without having eaten enough to sustain them. But the problem is distribution, not lack of resources. Do a search on U.S. Government farm subsidies. The U.S. has actually paid farmers in the past to destroy food in order to keep prices down. Farmers have also been pa... Overpopulation, stretched resources, etc.More alarmism. I guess it is genetic. Advances on food production outpace population dramatically. Yes, overpopulation and stretched resources. What may have been true in 2000, certainly is not true today as we are nearing 2008. I don't think many can seriously doubt, that the Earth is rapidly reaching it's breaking point regarding sustainability. Just Google "world food supplies" or "global food reserves", "clean water" or "fish stocks" and it's obvious, in which direction we are headed. Then we have the competition for energy sources (oil etc) and the threats facing food production caused by climate change. I do honestly think these are problems we should address first. Should mankind (despite it's virus-like status on this Earth) ever become endangered, then of course I'd consid... The average American, according to my previous research, takes in about 3 times more food than is necessary for survival. I doubt that's changed since 2000. That covers 600 million of the 850 million people that are discussed in the first article you posted. I think that article actually supports my position; hunger is a problem caused by poor distribution (and the fact that many cannot afford food). The second article only says that we are using viable food sources for the wrong things. There's plenty of food to go around. Notice that the alarmism in both of those articles applies almost exclusively to grains. There are other food sources: dairy, meats, vegetables, poultry, fruits. How did we get on this topic again?!  |
View the Top Clips from October 14, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
