Hearsay Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I was wondering if Obama would touch upon abortion, and he did. What he said was that regardless of our stance upon the abortion issue itself, "we must all agree on the heart-wrenching angst" a young woman making that decision must deal with. I thought about that. It doesn't make sense to me. I kept waiting for him to discuss the substantive issue of abortion and it never came, instead he simply talked about us all having "civil debate." If a fetus is not a viable life at conception, if it is merely a collection of tissue and cells, why would there ever be "heart-wrenching angst" for abortiong the fetus? Can any pro-choice supporter answer that question for me?
Wyrostek Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I was wondering if Obama would touch upon abortion, and he did. What he said was that regardless of our stance upon the abortion issue itself, "we must all agree on the heart-wrenching angst" a young woman making that decision must deal with. I thought about that. It doesn't make sense to me. I kept waiting for him to discuss the substantive issue of abortion and it never came, instead he simply talked about us all having "civil debate." If a fetus is not a viable life at conception, if it is merely a collection of tissue and cells, why would there ever be "heart-wrenching angst" for abortiong the fetus? Can any pro-choice supporter answer that question for me? Excellent points. He also charged individuals on both sides to find compromise and areas in which they can agree. How do you find compromise between good and evil?
Bandit29 Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I was wondering if Obama would touch upon abortion, and he did. What he said was that regardless of our stance upon the abortion issue itself, "we must all agree on the heart-wrenching angst" a young woman making that decision must deal with. I thought about that. It doesn't make sense to me. I kept waiting for him to discuss the substantive issue of abortion and it never came, instead he simply talked about us all having "civil debate." If a fetus is not a viable life at conception, if it is merely a collection of tissue and cells, why would there ever be "heart-wrenching angst" for abortiong the fetus? Can any pro-choice supporter answer that question for me? Great point. Libs try to make it sound like it is just like having a wart removed or something. There is no "heart-wrenching angst" from having a wart removed.
Clyde Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I can't imagine choosing abortion. However, to take a stab at your question I'd say that the woman making that choice is often filled with angst. Even if in her mind the fetus is not YET a human they obviously realize that the end result of a pregnancy is a live human being. Therefore, I don't think its hard to imagine someone feeling angst when making this decision.
Plato Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I can't imagine choosing abortion. However, to take a stab at your question I'd say that the woman making that choice is often filled with angst. Even if in her mind the fetus is not YET a human they obviously realize that the end result of a pregnancy is a live human being. Therefore, I don't think its hard to imagine someone feeling angst when making this decision. Well said.
Wyrostek Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I can't imagine choosing abortion. However, to take a stab at your question I'd say that the woman making that choice is often filled with angst. Even if in her mind the fetus is not YET a human they obviously realize that the end result of a pregnancy is a live human being. Therefore, I don't think its hard to imagine someone feeling angst when making this decision. Other than in extremely rare situations, she had the freedom of choice in regard to getting pregnant. After she brings a third innocent person into the mix, her right to choose should end. Emotional scenerios always sound appealing. However, you must remove the emotion and look at the facts.
Clyde Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Other than in extremely rare situations, she had the freedom of choice in regard to getting pregnant. After she brings a third innocent person into the mix, her right to choose should end. Emotional scenerios always sound appealing. However, you must remove the emotion and look at the facts. I answered the question as posed. You've just preached against abortion.
Bluegrasscard Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Welcome to the 3rd rail of politics. And here is the irony or apparent contradiction of the polls on this issue: Type in the following search in google - 'Americans roe v. wade poll' http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=americans+roe+v.+wade+poll&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=6wkTSvrcNZCm8gSK67WPBA&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1 2 of the top 3 results: "Poll: 68 percent say don't overturn Roe V. Wade" "Most Americans now opposed to abortion"
Wyrostek Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I answered the question as posed. You've just preached against abortion. No. Actually, I "preached" for personal rsponsibility.
rockmom Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Other than in extremely rare situations, she had the freedom of choice in regard to getting pregnant. After she brings a third innocent person into the mix, her right to choose should end. Emotional scenerios always sound appealing. However, you must remove the emotion and look at the facts. Spoken like someone who: 1) Obviously isn't a woman 2) Obviously hasn't counseled women in a position of choosing abortion 3) Is incapable of empathy or compassion 4) Judges the majority by the actions of a few.
Wyrostek Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Spoken like someone who: 1) Obviously isn't a woman 2) Obviously hasn't counseled women in a position of choosing abortion 3) Is incapable of empathy or compassion 4) Judges the majority by the actions of a few. Actually, spoken by one who believes that there are absolutes in this life and that the sanctity of life is one of them. Your judgmental statements are ridiculous. I would have given you a bit more credit than that. My empathy and compassion are with the most vulnerable of our population- the conceived baby. Are you implying that most of these women just woke up one morning as "victims" of pregnancy through no "efforts" of their own? Surely not. As long as there is no innocent third party involved, have your freedom to choose. But, thereafter, someone must protect the innocent.
acemona Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Actually, spoken by one who believes that there are absolutes in this life and that the sanctity of life is one of them. Your judgmental statements are ridiculous. I would have given you a bit more credit than that. My empathy and compassion are with the most vulnerable of our population- the conceived baby. Are you implying that most of these women just woke up one morning as "victims" of pregnancy through no "efforts" of their own? Surely not. As long as there is no innocent third party involved, have your freedom to choose. But, thereafter, someone must protect the innocent. I assume then that you also support making sure that these third party innocents are well fed, well housed, well clothed, and well educated through taxes and well - fare. They are after all in the same vulnerable state in that they cannot fend for themselves.
Wyrostek Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Of course, acemona. It is all part of the sanctity of life- before and after birth. We should always be willing to assist those in need. And, to be fair, I really don't believe that you and rockmom support the present wholesale slaughter of our fellow human beings merely because they pose as an imposition to those who conceived them. If we do not honor the sanctity of all life, couldn't we just extend the "right" to ridding society of those who are a burden? It would sure help with unemployment, welfare, and the use of tax dollars. Treating God's creation as commodities can lead to a slippery slope. Still, I believe a little less emphasis on "rights" and a little more emphasis on "responsibility" would serve us well in addressing this issue and most other issues. Possibly we should incorporate some version of "assumption of the risk".
UKMustangFan Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Spoken like someone who: 1) Obviously isn't a woman 2) Obviously hasn't counseled women in a position of choosing abortion 3) Is incapable of empathy or compassion 4) Judges the majority by the actions of a few. So someone who doesn't think it's a difficult choice because the person chose to get pregnant in the first place is incapable of compassion? That's a new one to me...:idunno:
Clyde Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 So someone who doesn't think it's a difficult choice because the person chose to get pregnant in the first place is incapable of compassion? That's a new one to me...:idunno: I'm not speaking for RM. Someone who doesn't think its a difficult choice for most people can't see past the end of their nose.
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.