ForumGarden

I can't seem to get past this. Of course I never could justify this despite my leanings and affiliation. I've never accepted the party line because it stifles individual liberty in the name of individual convenience.

I wonder if we will someday look back on this period with horror and disdain as we do with slavery and pre-women's rights changes? Prior to the changes, society had accepted the practices for the most part throughout the world until they came to their senses and reversed a societal wrong. I wonder if we will feel the "guilt".

I take issue of political use of one topic while simultaneously justifying an even greater atrocity. It doesn't really matter what side of the argument a person is on politically when considering the lives of children and "if" they are so important to us as a society. What "value" are we clinging to in justifying one and condemning the other.

Just some ramblings.........



"In terms of lives lost, the daily number of abortions equates to having almost 150 Newtowns every single day for an entire year for 40 straight years." - CDC and HHS have all the statistical numbers and facts.

I will fight for a woman's right to choose despite any ramblings you may have on the subject.....and you seem to be dancing around it. I'm not looking to argue this, it does become tedious after decades & decades, but I won't dance around: Abortion is a choice & requires no apologies or excuses.

AnneBoleyn;1417326 wrote: I will fight for a woman's right to choose despite any ramblings you may have on the subject.....and you seem to be dancing around it. I'm not looking to argue this, it does become tedious after decades & decades, but I won't dance around: Abortion is a choice & requires no apologies or excuses.


Ok. Is this a personal value?

That's a lot of lives? Is it acceptable to have this many gun deaths? Auto deaths? Drug deaths? Child abuse deaths? Just trying to get an understanding of how many is too many.

And my post was not about a right to choose, but about the number of lives destroyed.

A fetus interrupted is not a life, is not alive.

eta--you ask if this is a personal value. It is a practical value. Women WILL abort if they feel they must & I want to be sure it is not an illegal, shameful, or dangerous procedure.

eta, again!--A fetus interrupted is not a life, is not alive.

May I add a Potential for life, but is not itself alive & cannot live outside the womb.

And my post was not about a right to choose
Sorry, but that is what this always turns into--putting restrictions on Roe v. Wade. Of course, you may be (& I don't wish to presume) trying to appeal your cause as a moral issue, that if only pregnant women could see what you see, or know what you know............................& I'm using 'you' in a general way, as this has been used before. It still winds up as impeding choice as the only way to get the desired result.

AnneBoleyn;1417349 wrote:

May I add a Potential for life, but is not itself alive & cannot live outside the womb.


So it is in fact living inside the womb? Must not be a gun free zone?

AnneBoleyn;1417353 wrote: Sorry, but that is what this always turns into--putting restrictions on Roe v. Wade. Of course, you may be (& I don't wish to presume) trying to appeal your cause as a moral issue, that if only pregnant women could see what you see, or know what you know............................& I'm using 'you' in a general way, as this has been used before. It still winds up as impeding choice as the only way to get the desired result.


I'm simply appalled by the sheer numbers while we push for gun control over tiny numbers. It almost appears the agenda is gun control, and not saving lives. Something is illogical about all of this.

halfway;1417363 wrote: So it is in fact living inside the womb? Must not be a gun free zone?
Life exists on it's own & is not a dependant.

AnneBoleyn;1417385 wrote: Life exists on it's own & is not a dependant.


We should continue to charge criminals with assault actions that lead to the death of an unborn baby, no?

Listen up. Mother's Life, Mother's Choice. And--A FETUS IS NOT A BABY.

halfway;1417311 wrote: I take issue of political use of one topic while simultaneously justifying an even greater atrocity. It doesn't really matter what side of the argument a person is on politically when considering the lives of children and "if" they are so important to us as a society. What "value" are we clinging to in justifying one and condemning the other.Conflating guns and abortion again, huh. This appears to be the the argument the gun lobby is using to move moralistic people to their side of the gun rights issue.

halfway;1417311 wrote: Just some ramblings.........That's obvious.

AnneBoleyn;1417387 wrote: Listen up. Mother's Life, Mother's Choice. And--A FETUS IS NOT A BABY.
And a woman is not a brood mare, not an incubator.

I'm willing to drop this conversation right now, hope you are too!

AnneBoleyn;1417387 wrote: Listen up. Mother's Life, Mother's Choice. And--A FETUS IS NOT A BABY.


Ok, got it.

Just comparing the fight for one over the other.

One has significantly more deaths with the "choice" folks justifying it by stating a Supreme Court decision as a right and another argument being that it is not a life (although we consider it a life when assault on the pregnant mother is incurred). Many use the claim that they are "protecting others" and "preventing harm".

The other side with significantly less deaths claim to fight over a specified "right" listed in the Bill of Rights and further argue it as a protection for themselves and their families against criminals.

Just getting a handle on this.

AnneBoleyn;1417389 wrote: And a woman is not a brood mare, not an incubator.


Why would you think she is and have to defend that she is not? Who thinks these things?

*I* obviously don't think a woman is a brood mare or an incubator, but if a woman is forced to carry to term, against her will, then that is what she becomes.

As a sensible person, I have to feel a bit suspicious when the president says he cares so much about life that he is willing to further split the country over A RIGHT. If the "life" were the real reason, why is there so little emphasis on other major death-causing issues?

Why? Why would he not simply say that it is an individual's "right" to choose, and move on? Why talk about having a "conversation", when the mind is already made up and stays in line with anti-gun and anti-armed citizenry zealots?

I fear the potential for expansive government as have many before me. And this is regardless of politics. So when an individual Liberty is threatened, I have to ask why?

Why?

I guess your comments about women's right to choose and the end of the conversation because "you will not waiver" is exactly the same emotions millions are having over their Individual Rights.

It is an amazing war of dogma isn't it?

I don't feel the second amendment is in any danger at all. Other presidents have discussed various gun control measures, have had bills passed. Splitting the country? It's already split! I support the 2nd Amendment too, & do not see any real threat, only fears.

AnneBoleyn;1417396 wrote: do not see any real threat, only fears.


But others apparently feel the same threat as those who feel abortion rights are attacked. I am not sure if fear is accurate....as many I have talked to are not unduly paranoid, but very spirited in their commitment to the Constitution and their Rights.

I do find it extremely ludicrous and absolutely disingenuous to say "one child death is too many" in justifying control measures on a "Right", regardless of politics. If we are "so" committed to saving life, maybe all life-ending measured need a "conversation".

I guess your comments about women's right to choose and the end of the conversation because "you will not waiver" is exactly the same emotions millions are having over their Individual Rights.

It is an amazing war of dogma isn't it?
I never said "I will not waiver", but you are right, because I won't. Besides guns, what other rights do you feel are in jeopardy? What America do you want back?

AnneBoleyn;1417400 wrote: What America do you want back?


That would imply we are past the good ole days. I believe we are living in great times with wonder and opportunity.

We worked hard for women's rights and civil rights, so better days have occurred since.

I believe a little more self-reliance is always good and is what aided America's rise to prominence while being more diverse and multicultural than anywhere in the world.

I believe religion providing moral fiber is far greater than a secularist government attempting the same.

The erosion of individual liberty and strengthening of federal power is to be feared...always. "Enumerated" for a reason!

Don't like your fellow man's beliefs in Texas? Move to Vermont.

Don't like the taxes in California...move to Wyoming.

Don't like the nanny-state oppression of NYC? Move to Las Vegas.

The closer the individual is to government, the closer it reflects their values. Federal power is far too susceptible to propaganda and the Soros' of the world. Keep it local, keep federal doing what it was intended.

My $.02

You're against abortion deaths, but for gun massacres? Well make up your blasted mind, do you love life or hate it?

If you love life, then you should be against anything that takes it away including guns. If you hate life, then you should be for anything that takes it away including abortion.

What kind of twisted logic says, 'I'm against stopping an unwanted, unloved life from beginning, but I'm for letting others destroy full-blown meaningful lives because stopping them might rob me of my "right" to kill someone else in the future?!!

Sheesh!

Saint_;1417418 wrote: You're against abortion deaths, but for gun massacres? Well make up your blasted mind, do you love life or hate it?

If you love life, then you should be against anything that takes it away including guns. If you hate life, then you should be for anything that takes it away including abortion.

What kind of twisted logic says, 'I'm against stopping an unwanted, unloved life from beginning, but I'm for letting others destroy full-blown meaningful lives because stopping them might rob me of my "right" to kill someone else in the future?!!

Sheesh!


I believe you cannot answer the question as you have posed it either. Try.

Read a little deeper and you will see there is a "degree" of acceptability in our society of certain tragedy's.

When do you feel a tragedy is used to further an agenda? Try some moral relativism in an attempt to answer. Maybe Benedict.....or try Plato for another take.

halfway;1417428 wrote: Try some moral relativism .


OK...Sounds good to me.

Saint_;1417430 wrote: OK...Sounds good to me.


Are you sure? Or should you be a bit more tolerant and remain neutral in case of any responsibility?

Rhetorical question.....