Originally Posted by Thorgrim To get to the point: If a religion and moral code do not recognize a fetus as anything of any value, who are we to legislate morality to them? The question becomes, even though it is not illegal, should we change our laws to surpress someone ...
04-17-2008, 02:33 PM
| #21 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC 
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I don't think we should really be using Jewish religious code to decide whether or not something is moral or acceptable in society to begin with tbh.
I mean, I find what she did disgusting and outrageous, but I'm still pro-choice.. I just think this was a horrible use of the freedom she has to make those decisions I'm torn on whether or not Yale should permit this not because I'm against abortions as a matter of law | ||||
     |
|
04-17-2008, 02:34 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by rockpusher
Originally Posted by Thorgrim Why am I surprised to be proven wrong?
Well if some superstitious stone-age-tech desert dwellers a few thousand years ago say no harm to accidentally kill a fetus before 30 days.... I guess we should all snap in line and obey them.... better yet, we should induce massive amounts of abortions and show them to each other just to push the point. This woman is REALLY REALLY sick..... and so is the utterly twisted portion of society that stand as her apologists. | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:34 PM
| #23 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 There's still not a consensus that a fetus is 'life' worthy of protection until it's sustainable outside the mother's body though.. so to buy into that framing, don't you have to be pro-life and against abortions to begin with?
| ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:36 PM
| #24 | ||||
| no es mi culpa  Independent Beantown
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim religion and morality may have similarities but they are not the same thing. an atheist has morals but no religion.
knowing right from wrong does not require religion.
__________________ There is small disproportion betwixt a fool who useth not wit because he hath it not and him that useth it not when it should avail him. | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:38 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 Whether she created a special "life" is a matter of personal religion, which I've already talked about
The Supreme Court said was MUST be done, not what SHOULD be done...it was a demand to pro-life states, not a command to pro-choice states | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:41 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death!  libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 If one makes the argument that you can 'abuse' a constitutional right, what stops them from saying you're 'abusing' your right to keep and bear arms by owning too many?
If there is a right to abortion in the constitution - I don't believe this, but if there is - then it must be limited by what limits the Constitution places on it. Clearly it's not limited by 'only in cases of danger to the mother's life' or I wouldn't know women that have aborted 5 times because they couldn't figure out how to use birth control (and that's a real example, by the way). Thus, if abortion is protected by the constitution somehow, then she should be able to abort as many times as she pleases. That's me putting myself in as objective a standpoint as I possibly can. I think it's depraved and horrible what she did, and I think that she's got a Higher price to pay, but from a constitutional standpoint, I think that's where I stand. | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:41 PM
| #27 | ||||
| no es mi culpa Independent Beantown
| give me a bad reputation comment saying i'm rude because i tell you to stop arguing for the sake of arguing? you might at well tell me i'm rude for saying the grass is green. jesus christ! get over yourself and stop trolling! | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:42 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by motivez With respect I think this is a religious matter...just because the article didn't specifically state her religion, I am pretty sure she has made a spiritual peace with her decision and we should not ignore that
I find it disturbing, I also find it disturbing when shia festivals have their fathers send out their sons to hit themselves with swords, they bleed out of control, and die from infected wounds But I do think it wouldn't be fair of me to just go "they're crazy and disgusting!" and move on...I am personally uncomfortable with many choices of morality/religion that lead to what some would consider death | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:42 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by Linzyhop Some folks aren't aware that the reputation system is not the same as the digg down button.
| ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:43 PM
| #30 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by motivez Well I think thats a good point.
Personally I dont like abortion, but two things come to mind 1) this fight wastes more time and energy than many other important issues in washington. We'll always be fighting about this so its not worth it to me. 2)I understand how some people (who do not share my religious views) do not think a fetus is viable life. While I disagree I can understand their point. Which is why I dont get too worked up over first trimester abortions as originally interpreted by the Roe decision in 1973...however, once the "fetus" has a heartbeat and brain activity (which happens as soon as 6 weeks with modern technology) which occurs easily by hte end of the first trimester, it becomes tough to argue its not life. So if its life, its worth protecting at that point... I really only gave you that background because yes maybe you do have to be pro life to have the same idea I do...however, that doesn't necessarily make you against abortion 100% of the time...make sense? | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:44 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by thewise1 man another good point, and again I'm shooting from the hip here, I haven't thought this through nor will I be able to clearly think it through until I'm no longer at work (too much BS today in the office)...
Again I dont know that this is illegal, but I feel like creating life and killing it is at the very least pretty disturbing, do I have any constitutional ground to stand on? legal ground? ehhh maybe not, if thats the case then this is merely disturbing...but it is indeed very disturbing... | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:46 PM
| #32 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Linzyhop Most atheists I know admit they have a spirituality, they only dislike the word "religion", but there are others who claim to have no spirituality at all, but not many and there is some doubt if they are doing this as more of a symbol of anti-religion than anything else
there is a spirituality in it, even the ultimate example of what you are trying to say...someone like a strict Soviet who only respected Soviet Law and had no organized religion or maybe even in your view "no religion"...still had emotions and a reasoning that did not revovle around statistics or a final answer to what is right and wrong...but rather a sense of patriotism and civic action that is surely spiritual in nature...whether you want to call that a religion or not is up for debates...but that's semantics | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:50 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 The question, as usual, goes back to "is it a life that should be protected like any other?"
I will say yes, it's precious and should be protected just like your life or mine under law. I will also say that there are grey areas that make it almost impossible to efficiently legislate anything about this at all - our time when we thought Olivia had Trisomy 18 raised serious questions, and I think in situations like that there is some merit in parents making their own choices and answering to God. Some will say no, it's not life worthy of the same protections. I don't think that there can be any consensus on this honestly, although I'm glad to see we can at least mostly agree that this woman has serious issues. | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:50 PM
| #34 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 i think this topic was about whether yale would consider this disturbing or not...i find it disturbing as well...maybe if you described more of why you think it was disturbing, we can flesh out this thread a little
| ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:50 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Motz and Thewise1 maybe you guys can shed some light on the legal issues and constitutionality of this twisted art? You are both more educated in that area than I am... | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:53 PM
| #36 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by thewise1 Yes I agree we will never get a consensus on thsi which is why I haven't spent a whole lot of time researching abortion, nor do I spend a lot of time posting about it, but this story was just too sick and twisted for me to not respond.
I'm also glad we all agree this is sick. | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:56 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I think its disturbing because she's creating and destroying life for the sole purpose of "she can" or "its my right". Which is kinda
 Then there's also the simple blood and guts factor that many may find gross  I guess I dont know what you're really asking me to elaborate on??? | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:58 PM
| #38 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 I think next to Phantom I am the biggest constitutional (in legal matters) expert on this site...and since he's not in this thread...
RvW said the first trimester has no regulation whatsoever, however that has changed, first to viability in PP v Casey, which again is not at issue here Now, recent supreme court cases with a more conservative court have changed it to "no undue burden" meaning states can impose mandatory things for someone to do before they get an abortion and that as long as there is another option, they can regulate some procedures out...such as partial birth abortion the reasoning was based on "They can abort the fetus in another way, you don't NEED a partial birth abortion" which was based on conflicting science reports So, they could tell her (it would take several years to hit the bench) that she can not abort in such a way, but then would, if they would not over-turn RvW, say she can abort in another way...say, she must try to have the child for several months...it would be very sloppy but i think that's where they were to come if they were FORCED to make a decision But i am somewhat at a loss for who would bring the suit? it would have to be declared illegal in CT, and I don't know how they'd even begin to word it? | ||||
| |
|
04-17-2008, 02:59 PM
| #39 |
| no es mi culpa |
