Republicans, Abortion, Women's Rights, and the challenges facing them.

[FayeforCure]

Actually Stephen it was directed at Faye, who posted the article in defense of abortion. I think the real question is are we comfortable with researches monkeying around with human DNA?

No, it was not in defense of abortion as Stephen rightly points out. As a matter of fact I am anti-abortion myself, just like you. But where we differ is how to make abortion rare. I know we need to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies through effective and free contraception.

The only reason I posted that article was to refute the idea that life starts at conception.

If you were like Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch who are Republicans who are anti-abortion too, you'd say life starts at successful implantation: which means that the 600,000 frozen embryos at our fertility clinics are just clumps of cells.

[NotNow]

I never mentioned or called for "sexual ownership" or "sexual deprivation".  My personal beliefs or preferences don't make my arguments any less valid.  I don't know of a "polyamorous" society that is happy with anonymous sex, do you?  When have the animal instincts that you described resulted in real happiness on a broad scale?  Every "happy" human relationship that I am aware of is based on intimacy, whether it is a man and a woman, or any other combination.  I don't claim to know it all about human relationships and sexuality (or even a fraction), but I honestly think that we have a responsibility to each other.  I feel it.  It is one reason that I am uncomfortable in the abortion debate.  

[uptowngirl]

Actually Stephen it was directed at Faye, who posted the article in defense of abortion. I think the real question is are we comfortable with researches monkeying around with human DNA?

No, it was not in defense of abortion as Stephen rightly points out. As a matter of fact I am anti-abortion myself, just like you. But where we differ is how to make abortion rare. I know we need to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies through effective and free contraception.

The only reason I posted that article was to refute the idea that life starts at conception.

If you were like Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch who are Republicans who are anti-abortion too, you'd say life starts at successful implantation: which means that the 600,000 frozen embryos at our fertility clinics are just clumps of cells.

Faye, we do not disagree on how to prevent abortion.

I think everyone can agree abstinence is the only 100% sure way not to get pregnant (you don;t get sperm you aren't going to get pregnant.

Now, second best is birth control, and there are way to many options here to discuss each one (but please, if you are not in a very serious, very committed relationship and maybe even then- use a condom please!)

The only part we disagree on is who should pay for that birth control. I think within reason birth control should be made affordable for everyone (free even if qualified). By within reason, I mean it may not be the MBZ of birth control, but some safe, reliable, affordable version.

Lastly, While I am anti abortion- I am pro-choice I just think if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she should own up to the decision, within herself and not make excuses.

As I stated before I am not 100% sure it is just a lump of cells so until such time it can be confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt, I have to err on the side of caution.

[NotNow]

My point was that polyamorous, just as more traditional societies, are only really happy on a broad scale when intimacy is involved and not with anonymous sex.  I am not and have never called for "pair bonding" for life.  I really don't care who people choose to couple (or triple, or quadruple, or whatever) with.  My point is that happiness is based on much more than just physical sex.  That said, I certainly agree that we are sexual animals and sex is an important part of our lives.

I will read the book.

And yes, we do all have a responsibility to try to limit the horrors of abortion and the sadness of unwanted pregnancies.  As we discussed in another thread, it will take more than free contraceptives and sex ed in high school.

[Clem1029]

Sigh...I could tell everyone just to go check "Humanae Vita"e and follow up with "Theology of the Body" for good measure...

...but, as is normally the case around here, it's just pearls before swine.

Some hearts are simply too hardened.

[FayeforCure]

Sigh...I could tell everyone just to go check "Humanae Vita"e and follow up with "Theology of the Body" for good measure...

...but, as is normally the case around here, it's just pearls before swine.

Some hearts are simply too hardened.

To each his or her own as far as religion is concerned.

It is unfortunate that some religions are against contraception to reduce the number of abortions.

[buckethead]

I truly admire people of faith.









Except when they wish to use the coercive force of government to force others to live by their creed.

[Timkin]

+1

[Fallen Buckeye]

Sigh...I could tell everyone just to go check "Humanae Vita"e and follow up with "Theology of the Body" for good measure...

...but, as is normally the case around here, it's just pearls before swine.

Some hearts are simply too hardened.

Humanae Vitae is just beautiful. Here is a link for anyone who is interested. It does such a good job telling how parents can be responsible and still open to life.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I truly admire people of faith.

Except when they wish to use the coercive force of government to force others to live by their creed.

Some things we can live and let live. However, sometimes we have to draw a line in the sand. If Dr. King thought like you where would we be? Someone has to stand up for the rights of those whose cannot speak for themselves.

[buckethead]

Or... if there were less social programs, perhaps there would be less societal dereliction?

Off topic! My bad.

Not necessarily what I would advocate for, but the argument is out there.

I also agree with Not Now insomuch as the fact that "people are going to do it" whether it is criminal or not should not be justification for allowing/legalizing "it" whatever it might be.

A better justification would be like this:  Does this action/behavior unduly deprive a person (people) of his/her life, physical well being, property, liberty?

Any behavioral legislation should be based on these precepts.

In the case of abortion, we have collectively decided that it does not, but I'm hoping we can refine our collective decision through thoughtful and serious debate as well as scientific/medical advancements.

From another thread on abortion. I think it applies here as well.

[NotNow]

Your view of marriage sounds pretty depressing.  I hope your wife doesn't feel the same way. 

[NotNow]

Well then, you shouldn't get mad, that's too many people to whup! 

[Fallen Buckeye]

Stephen you're actually right in part because Humanae Vitae actually is more of a teaching document on family planning than on abortion. However, it is a part of a larger teaching on marriage and the family which is clearly related to abortion. Let me do some research because I believe that there are encyclical letters written that address the sanctity of life, too. Pope John Paul II also has a set of teachings related to the meaning of marriage, sex, etc. called Theology of the Body. When you take time to study these types of things you develop a different sort of appreciation for human life which makes a tragedy like abortion heartwrenching. I'm not suggesting that you do not value human life at all, but we clearly have different understandings about human life. I have to say I appreciate that you actually read the document and are making some attempt to understand it from the other perspective. Who knows? Maybe one day we'll agree on some of these issues. lol.