hi caroline-
i know your post was directed to william, but i would like to step in here. i agree that prevention is the key-if it worked there would be far less reasons for anyone to seek abortions. that is why i consider it to be solely MY responsibility whether or not i get pregnant. (lol, not now, before when i was young i mean). but i do not tell all women that it is their responsibility. i reason it out this way-there are better temporary guaranteed ways of not getting pregnant for a woman than there are for a man-at least last i had any reason to investigate it. a condom is not a very good way not to get pregnant. what i am saying is i chose to be responsible for whether or not i got pregnant when that was a possibility.

a man wanting to abort and the mother doesnt isnt the same issue. it goes back to whether or not abortion is murder. either it is or it isnt, it doesnt matter whether it is the man or the woman who wants to do it. if i had taken responsibility for conceiving a child, i would also have to choose a partner to raise that child. suppose my husband decided he wanted me to have an abortion. should he be able to force me to have one? if the basis is that abortion is murder, then no, he should not be able to force me to have an abortion. furthermore since he took part in the act of conception he should be financially responsible for the child as well as me. but he should not be forced to keep the child in his home and behave as a father to him-he would make a rotten father anyway.

so how is it that a couple becomes pregnant and the man wants the child and the woman doesnt? it happens. i do believe that the man's wish to have his child should be considered. there are a number of ways that could be done. his motives would have to be verified, and his ability to care for the child. but here the woman has agreed to conceive, now she may have to agree to bear the child. she should certainly not be forced to rear it-remove it from her at birth by all means. and she too should be held financially responsible in part for its upbringing.

i am not in favor of stopping abortion for the reason that anyone who wants to have one would not make a good mother to that child. we do not need any more lousy parenting in this world. i am not making any judgment whether or not it is moral or immoral, because i only do that for myself, not others.

there have to be laws in society to protect people from being hurt but we can carry that too far. where do we draw the line? protecting the helpless is a good start. i resented being told i had to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle-MY BODY MY CHOICE. i am not helpless. the unborn child is helpless. the argument then becomes: if it is not a child, not a human being, when does it become one and how? do you know the answer to that? if there is a law that abortion is illegal, i will not do it. if society decides abortion should be legal, i am not going to go out and kill all the doctors who do it and the people who want it done even if i think abortion is murder. there are other more appropriate ways of communicating.

does that answer your question?

RE: Salima, I did say everyones rights should be included,ie,mother father and fetus.

Faith driven ethics carry no logic just prejudice to hide the bigotry they portray as reason.Its the same logic that would never consider assisted suicide but would condone starving a patient to death.
I have asked many with these opinions to explain their views on many subjects and religious rhetoric is their only ever reply.Is abortion always right or always wrong?its never that simple for most of us, but it is never about god or his proposed teachings.

---------- Post added at 07:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 AM ----------

When do you consider this foetus as an unborn child? two hours two days two weeks two months...You have made a judgement on abortion because you called it murder.I dont agree with abortion under every circumstance or after a certain term but we must agree at what stage and for what reasons without this emotive term murder being used.

We disagree on whether an unborn child is a person or not. I do not see the unborn as people.

I also disagree on the capital punishment and war thing. That is sanctioned killing of individuals. So obviously I do not see abortion as murder, but the these I do. In the case of war, the powers that be that send soldiers to battle are the murderers, but they are having others do the killing for them.

re Will
If the pregnancy is an accident how on earth can you prepare a stable enviroment for it. Do you have any idea the commitment it takes to bring up a child, that's some preperation you got to do within 9 months billy boy. Your supposing that every conception happens in a marriage it doesnt. Noone is going to stop having sex just because they're not married so that's not going to happen, be realistic. The only people who shouldnt partake in intercourse are the ones who are not prepared to take responisbily because "it feels like wearing a rain coat" really william? well so what, so what if it does, you'd rather lay ALL the responsibilty on the female just because you're slightly desensitzed ahhh. So the woman has to get fitted a coil, or shove a load of chemicals in her system because you cant be bothered to wear a rubber condom? So she's entirely responsible for birth control, she's somehow responsible in getting herself pregnant and not the man, she ofcourse doesnt have sexual desires and would like to come out of it without being pregnant. She has the responsibily of birth control but you have the right to force her to carry a child that she didnt plan, give it away and suffer great pain too. Boy you dont ask alot do you Bill, i'd hate to be your girl. Yes abortion would be the easy way out for some situations it would be the easy way out for the kid too because there are no carers they end up in a home, this is the problem now, the system is flooded with unwanted kids, do you have any idea what affects that is going to have on society in the near future if you'd bothered to do your research you'd know that. It would've been easie to wear a condom in the first place. I dont think it's entirely fare leaving it all at the door of the woman. It's a total cop out, you can scream feminist all you like but that's not a sign of any factual evidence against my points.



That's your truth your shoving sdown my throat and how dare you!


With all due respect look up the word feminism. It means equal rights and opportunities. I never said anthing of the sort about 50,000,000 abortions being the result of rape etc?????????? Did I? Anyone?

There's a very big difference between Tiller and someone like Hitler. Hitler had the power, he made the decisions, he ordererd the killing.

Hitler didn't kill a single person with his own hands, except maybe when he was a lance corporal in WWI. He had people to do his killing. Himmler and Heydrich didn't kill anyone either, nor did Eichmann, Globocnik, Hoess, etc, etc...

The difference is that Hitler and everyone down the chain, all the way down to the sadistic camp guards, created an entire system of mass death and exploitation in which individual decisions and autonomy were a non-issue. They did everything to their victims short of eating them.

An abortion provider is 1) not exacting some sort of social policy, 2) applies his practice to an individual patient specifically in light of her wishes, and 3) assumes that the humanity of a fetus is subordinate to the autonomy of the mother carrying it.

You may think that point 3 is some sort of moral abomination. But too bad, you're in the minority, and majority rules in a democracy. And killing people who disagree with you is not going to help your cause.

going back and re-reading, you are quite right-my misunderstanding.

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------




my ethics are not faith driven. i have not made a judgment on abortion except for myself. are you referring to this sentence?
if society decides abortion should be legal, i am not going to go out and kill all the doctors who do it and the people who want it done even if i think abortion is murder.
perhaps i should reword it another way. "if i live in a society where abortion is not considered to be murder, i am not going to go out and take the law into my own hands by committing murders of abortion doctors and patients even if i happen to disagree with the law. a part of my ethics is that i also have chosen to abide by the laws of the society in which i live."

i really couldnt find anywhere in my quote that depends on faith-am i missing something?

and the question when do i consider the foetus an unborn child....i consider it to be an unborn child at the time the egg and sperm unite to form one organism. i realize some other people do not, and i was curious as to what their idea is. i mean what is the logic behind choosing any other period in time? this is one of the things that the decision is based on to support abortion as an ethical and moral act at a certain stage of pregnancy.

i think we can discuss this without using the term murder. i see it only as a legal term anyway-murder is against the law. is murder unethical? sometimes yes and sometimes no. see what i mean? no emoting intended.

if you want to discuss assisted suicide or any other issue, start another thread and i will see you there. happy to explain my views on any subject that troubles you without ever quoting any scriptures or referring to any deity.

1. Clearly, The., we don't agree on the personhood of the unborn child. I fail to see, however, why birth should matter. What about the unborn child changes when he is born except for an inconsequential spatial relationship? NOBODY looks at a 21 week old unborn child and says "Wow, that looks like a lump of cells." It looks like a child. If it's born prematurely, nobody would say "kill it!" Everybody would admit that it's a peron and ought to be cared for. What does birth change?

Of course, I think that an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, but it's obvious that a 21 wk old is. It doesn't even require deep philosophical discussion for it to be obvious.

2. If you disagree with me about capital punishment and the war thing, then you'd better have a darned good justification. With respect to capital punishment, the person executed has infringed upon the rights of another.

With respect to war, the politicians sending soldiers to war often do so because rights have been infringed.

In WWII, for example, the Japanese bombed our ships, and then Germany expressed an intent to harm us by declaring war on us. Clearly, I think that certain wars might be unjust, and I have no problem saying that the politicians sending the soldiers to war are committing a wrong, but we may not say that about war in general.

None of the above matters. What matters is the crime common to each of them. Murder is murder, and Justice demands that murderers be rendered incapable of committing their crimes further.

Just because something resembles something else, does not mean that is what it is. Sure a 21 week old fetus may resemble a child, but it is not a child. The health of the mother is far more important than the fetus. Not to mention, if that fetus has some major defect, there is no reason why the mother should be forced to bring a child that will probably live a miserable life into the world.

I don't find it obvious, in fact, I don't see a person until birth. Just because you believe something does not mean it is true.

The problem with capital punishment, is the person on death row was most likely discriminated against due to race. Look at the statistic of who is put on death row. The numbers are way out of proportion and the legal system favors whites over minorities. Thus, the capital punishment infringes on certain peoples rights to a fair trial.

Go tell all the families of the 1 million or so innocent Iraqis killed by American forces during the occupation that their dead loved ones infringed on others rights. All of those deaths are murders sanctioned by war criminals.

There are very few exceptions where war is permissible. WWII qualifies, as does the Revolutionary War, but other than those, most wars are unnecessary series of aggression against innocent people.

Murder is legally defined. Our legal system does not define abortion as murder. You hold a minority view that believes that our legal definition is incorrect. But you also voluntarily live in a country in which we accept a certain process by which laws can be changed, and you happen to hold a minority view that is not legally supported.

If you don't like it, then killing abortion providers -- however justified you may think it is -- is not going to help your cause.

So allowing this belief only satisfies your belief because in reality you dont want to run the risk of killing an innocent man and the victims families mostly dont feel justice has been served, as i said most'd prefer they rot in prison, therefore it only satisfies your beliefs where ever they stem from, im guessing the bible but you cannot expect people to accept your beliefs over the reasons I have mentioned above.

You say justice demands but it is your definition of justice. It does seem that an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth makes sense especially if someone killed your loved one but we do not live in those times anymore, it seems to me that were more babaric and I believe that an eye for an eye is barbaric and we do not live in barbaric times. However, if it happened to a loved one, you feel so angry that you want that person to die and you may not have to know the victim to feel this angry. Laws are in place for a reason and in this case as in many others it is to maintain a civil society. One of the main reasons vigilantism is illegal is because again innocent people were and still are often attacked and killed by vigilantes seeking justice who had killed the wrong person. It is barbaric and you have to ask yourself how low/far will you go?

All of this is irrelevent. George Tiller wasn't innocent.

Furthermore, you're dodging the real point here. Is it wrong to kill a guilty person? I'm not talking about law for the moment. I'm talking about the act itself, the very act of killing a guilty person on account of his guilt. Is that wrong? Clearly not.

Therefore, regardless of the state of the laws, George Tiller's killer isn't guilty.