Kerry believe's life begins at conception before he believed it should be aborted

[FreshJive]

Of course I am all for killing highly sentient a--holes like Saddam Hussien.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: FreshJive
Of course I am all for killing highly sentient a--holes like Saddam Hussien.

Line of the week.

[dude1394]

I can honestly understand the thinking of a person who could logically argue that a first tri-mester (just to throw out a number) could arguably be killed. I'm not sure about the "soul" going into a baby at conception, no doubt his entire genetic makeup is determined at that instant.

However at some point in time, you have to determine that there is a baby. It can't be after it's head has emerged but not the rest of the body. This is ludicrous and barbaric. I cannot see any difference in aborting a child at that time versus drowning a baby girl as other barbaric societies have done.

Arguing that it's the law of the land is also disingenuous. There is no law legalizing abortion. A "right" was built out of sack-cloth by the supreme court that a woman has a right to kill a baby at anytime she desires so long as it still inhabits her body. The ferocity that pro-abortionests' defend this "right" is indicative of the weak logic it resides on.

I'm sure that killing jews was quite legal in Nazi Germany. Selling human beings was quite legal in the US. Legality certainly cannot be argued to usurp morality, wherever "morality" comes from.

[Mavdog]

The discussion has moved to one on abortion- which IMHO is a very polarizing issue seldom reconciled by debate- and away from that which the topic is- Do our elected officials have the mandate to place into law their theocratic beliefs?

The answer that Kerry gave on abortion is not that different than what GW is also talking, that being to maintain the status quo, in spite of the personal beliefs each has about their opposition to abortion.

Their decisions tho are based on different rationale. GW believes that the issue is too divisive in our country to tackle, Kerry believes that his religious beliefs should not be the basis for his policies.

The Kerry position is interesting, and reminds me of the time when JFKennedy went to the protestant convention in 1960 to state that he will never look to Rome for policies. There were actual voter concerns about this papal meddling, and that was only 40 years ago.

Kerry doesn't see the need for that same speech that JFK gave, but the theme is similar. He won't let the Church determine his positions.

Do we expect that our political leaders follow religious principles or do we expect just the opposite? Does this depend on what religion the politician practices?

[dude1394]

Comparing bush's stance to abortion to kerry's is ridiculous. Kerry actively PROMOTES abortion whenever he can. Quite a big difference at least to my non-massachuestts-trained mind.

I do not expect kerry to come out guns-ablazing against abortion just because he thinks it's killing an innocent baby, as dubya says, the country isn't ready to go there. However his stance is completly hypocitical with his support of partial birth abortion and 100% rating by pro-abortion groups. He can waffle, but he can't hide from his record.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The discussion has moved to one on abortion- which IMHO is a very polarizing issue seldom reconciled by debate- and away from that which the topic is- Do our elected officials have the mandate to place into law their theocratic beliefs?

The answer that Kerry gave on abortion is not that different than what GW is also talking, that being to maintain the status quo, in spite of the personal beliefs each has about their opposition to abortion.

Their decisions tho are based on different rationale. GW believes that the issue is too divisive in our country to tackle, Kerry believes that his religious beliefs should not be the basis for his policies.

The Kerry position is interesting, and reminds me of the time when JFKennedy went to the protestant convention in 1960 to state that he will never look to Rome for policies. There were actual voter concerns about this papal meddling, and that was only 40 years ago.

Kerry doesn't see the need for that same speech that JFK gave, but the theme is similar. He won't let the Church determine his positions.

Do we expect that our political leaders follow religious principles or do we expect just the opposite? Does this depend on what religion the politician practices?

Just FYI,
I could care less what "religion" they are. I just care that they are of "high morals", and trustworthy, not hypocrital, and not power hungry. If they don't have these qualities, then why would I want to follow them.

The President is the Commander in Chief. He first and foremost controls the most devastating military known to man. If he can be bought, if he is not trustworthy, if he is hypocritical, then that said military will not follow his leadership. If the military will not follow his leadership, then he cannot LEAD, and is not a leader.

Spend a little time in the military, and put your life on the line. It doesn't take long for you to understand why you need this type of people in leadership roles. Crime rates go way up in cities where the leadership of the police is weak. The strength of a country goes way down when a non-trustworthy, hypocritical, low moraled person is in office. When they are weak enough, they can be attacked, and destroyed. The destruction has to start from within. History repeats itself because people don't study history.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - If your comment was not intended as a smart-aleck reply, then my apologies. To answer your question, a child's life begins at the moment that they are conceived.

As to your other question (Do our elected officials have the mandate to place into law their theocratic beliefs?), well, I don't think people have "theocratic" beliefs, but I get what you mean. And I'll say it again. You're legislating morality, one way or the other. Whether your morals are based upon or derived from religious beliefs that you hold or whether they're simply based upon your own personal code of ethics, they are your moral beliefs. That is, your morality. When the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade in 1973, they were legislating THEIR morality. So to say that the law shouldn't be changed because it would be placing into law or legislating religious morality is to be thoroughly disingenuous; it also somehow suggests that if your morals are based upon religious beliefs that they are somehow inferior to morals that are formed another way.

[Drbio]

Mavdog - If your comment was not intended as a smart-aleck reply, then my apologies. To answer your question, a child's life begins at the moment that they are conceived.

Of course he intended it as a smart ass response. It's all he has in his lame ass bag.

[mavsman55]

Now's the part of the thread where reeds stands up for Mavdog and says something like "Don't worry Mavdog, anybody that's different from Drbio is an idiot anyway"

[Usually Lurkin]

"Vatican II is very clear. There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church. You have to examine your conscience," Kerry said. "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist... who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

This to me is the icing on the cake that Kerry is trying to both keep and eat.

He is not standing on his own beliefs here, as Kennedy did. He is not acting secure in his own beliefs here, as he would have you believe he is. He's trying to rationalize his position in light of the directives of the Catholic church. Freedom of conscience can't possibly be taken to mean that the 10 commandments are relative to individual conscience, to be applied when and where an individual might see fit. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is telling him explicitly what they think. They don't like his position on abortion. That doesn't matter to Kerry, though. He'll still argue that his position is right within their system of morality. And lo and behold, Kerry's trying to argue that his position is right in my system, and in your system, and in any system anyone might think up. How can that be??? How can that be true for a decision point like abortion that is so polarizing, and so devisive, in which positions really are mutually exclusive? That can be only because Kerry himself has no system for deciding what is right or wrong. No system other than "say whatever might get some votes." That's not good leadership.

And he is applying his religion to legislation. Only it's in a jacked-up, confused and hypocritical way. He mentions freedom of conscience as a religious precept. Yet he can't be applying that to his own decision. His viewpoint is that life begins at conception - consistent with the catholic church. He must be applying freedom of conscious to the parents who are making a decision about abortion. Or more specifically, he wants to make part of the US lawbooks this religious notion of freedom of conscience. Decide for yourself whether or not you are morally right or wrong to kill your own unborn child. He wants his own religion, a warpped Catholicism, to be the law by which abortion is made legal.

[reeds]

Does pro-choice mean pro-abortion?

No. Pro-choice means supporting access to all reproductive options - whether it's motherhood, contraception, abortion, or adoption — and supporting the right of all individuals to make their own personal decisions about when and whether to have a child.

If I believe abortion is wrong, does that make me anti-choice?

Not necessarily. Many who would not choose abortion for themselves are still pro-choice. They recognize that each person's situation is unique and that others may not share their religious and moral beliefs, viewpoints, or life experiences. And they understand the danger posed by laws that impose a single moral view on others.

If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but respect the right of others to make that decision for themselves, then you are pro-choice.

Simple- As I said..you dont have to beleive in abortion to be pro-choice......

[dude1394]

Reeds....

Is someone who supports sucking the brains out of a baby after the head has passed the mother and aborting it pro-choice?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
Does pro-choice mean pro-abortion?

No. Pro-choice means supporting access to all reproductive options - whether it's motherhood, contraception, abortion, or adoption — and supporting the right of all individuals to make their own personal decisions about when and whether to have a child.

If I believe abortion is wrong, does that make me anti-choice?

Not necessarily. Many who would not choose abortion for themselves are still pro-choice. They recognize that each person's situation is unique and that others may not share their religious and moral beliefs, viewpoints, or life experiences. And they understand the danger posed by laws that impose a single moral view on others.

If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but respect the right of others to make that decision for themselves, then you are pro-choice.

Simple- As I said..you dont have to beleive in abortion to be pro-choice......

The more I read this post, the more confused I become. Only you, reeds, are able to proclaim yourself as pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

[dude1394]

The more I read this post, the more confused I become. Only you, reeds, are able to proclaim yourself as pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

I think you are forgetting one John Kerry who also has this ability.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: dude1394

I think you are forgetting one John Kerry who also has this ability.

Oh yeah, duh! Thanks dude.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: reeds
Does pro-choice mean pro-abortion?

No. Pro-choice means supporting access to all reproductive options - whether it's motherhood, contraception, abortion, or adoption — and supporting the right of all individuals to make their own personal decisions about when and whether to have a child.

If I believe abortion is wrong, does that make me anti-choice?

Not necessarily. Many who would not choose abortion for themselves are still pro-choice. They recognize that each person's situation is unique and that others may not share their religious and moral beliefs, viewpoints, or life experiences. And they understand the danger posed by laws that impose a single moral view on others.

If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but respect the right of others to make that decision for themselves, then you are pro-choice.

Simple- As I said..you dont have to beleive in abortion to be pro-choice......

When it gets to that point, it's no longer a choice, reeds. It's a life. Stop masking the truth with nice words like choice. You claim to believe it is a life. So if you do, call it what it is. You are anti-life.

A choice is what you get on a test or on a restaurant menu.

[dude1394]

A choice is what you get on a test or on a restaurant menu.

BRAVO!

[reeds]

"Not necessarily. Many who would not choose abortion for themselves are still pro-choice. They recognize that each person's situation is unique and that others may not share their religious and moral beliefs, viewpoints, or life experiences. And they understand the danger posed by laws that impose a single moral view on others."

OK guys..im quoting my own quote..what part of the above do you not understand? I DO NOT agree with abortion and would NEVER consider it in my own life- period. BUT, I am still pro-choice. PLEASE dont tell me that is impossible- because that is the way i feel..call it moronic if you like, but dont say I cant have it both ways...I am liberal and will always feel I cannot tell someone else how to live their life, what they can and cannot to with their own body. Every situation is different, unique, special, etc...worry about your own situations, not others situations....

[dude1394]

Reeds....

Is someone who supports sucking the brains out of a baby after the head has passed the mother and aborting it pro-choice?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: reeds
Does pro-choice mean pro-abortion?

No. Pro-choice means supporting access to all reproductive options - whether it's motherhood, contraception, abortion, or adoption — and supporting the right of all individuals to make their own personal decisions about when and whether to have a child.

Stop using euphemisms, reeds. "Reproductive options"? It's either murder, or it isn't. If it is, then it's no longer just a personal decision to be made by an individual.

If I believe abortion is wrong, does that make me anti-choice?

Not necessarily. Many who would not choose abortion for themselves are still pro-choice. They recognize that each person's situation is unique and that others may not share their religious and moral beliefs, viewpoints, or life experiences. And they understand the danger posed by laws that impose a single moral view on others.

The law AS IT STANDS on this issue imposes a single moral view on everyone. Most of our laws impose moral views. We have laws against killing people (unless they're still in the womb) because we think it's wrong to kill. We have laws against robbing people because we think it's wrong to steal. Certainly, those are Biblical values (do not kill; do not steal). Perhaps we should have complete separation of church and state. We can't have laws against murder and robbery. That would be imposing our moral and even (dare I say it) our religious values upon society. Oh wait, we can and we do.

The "we can't impose our morals on others" argument is an inherently flawed argument, because that's EXACTLY why we create laws.

If you believe abortion is wrong (another euphemism for murder), then you are a hypocrite if you think we shouldn't change the law to make it murder. Or, perhaps you don't really think it's wrong after all.

You have to get off the fence. You can't have it both ways.

[dude1394]

Ah those sticky,sticky moral issues. So tough for the left.

[FreshJive]

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between religious and philosophical morals? No one is saying that morals based on religion are inferior. They just aren't practical or fair when attempting to govern the secular world in a free society. Murder isn't illegal because God says it is. Its because we have decided that it is wrong and because rampant murder has an unhealthy effect on society.

The job of government is not to do God's work. The job of government is to keep order and promote a healthy society for its subjects. You can't have freedom of religion when the government is imposing its religious beliefs upon its population. I think a bigger flip- flop, fence straddling position is this: I believe in freedom of religion, but you must believe like I do because I will legislate my beliefs.

[FreshJive]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Line of the week.

Thanks U2. I knew if I kept throwing sentences up against the board I would score sometime. Just like Antoine from three.

FJ the Volume Poster.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: FreshJive
Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between religious and philosophical morals? No one is saying that morals based on religion are inferior. They just aren't practical or fair when attempting to govern the secular world in a free society. Murder isn't illegal because God says it is. Its because we have decided that it is wrong and because rampant murder has an unhealthy effect on society.

And why did "we" decide that murder was wrong? Do you think that each legislator in each state that passed laws prohibiting murder made their decision on philosophical as opposed to religious grounds? I don't think you're really that naive.

I don't think your distinction works. If a person believes something is morally wrong, it doesn't really matter WHY they believe it's morally wrong. They may have philosophical reasons for that belief; they may have religious reasons; they may have both. Either way, in our representative system of government, laws are passed and changed by legislators (and, unfortunately, judges) who vote and render decisions based upon their own morality, which is unquestionably formed by their philosophical AND religious beliefs. That's the way it is NOW, and that's the way it always has been.

Saying that you SHOULD be able to pass laws that reflect morality formed by philosophical viewpoints but NOT morality formed by religious viewpoints is simply an attempt to undermine and discredit those that HAVE religious beliefs, because such a rationale is completely illogical and ignores reality.

The job of government is not to do God's work. The job of government is to keep order and promote a healthy society for its subjects. You can't have freedom of religion when the government is imposing its religious beliefs upon its population. I think a bigger flip- flop, fence straddling position is this: I believe in freedom of religion, but you must believe like I do because I will legislate my beliefs.

I think you're a bit confused. No one is legislating beliefs. No one is saying that we should pass laws that say, "It is against the law to believe....(fill in the blank)" What I'm saying is that if legislators or judges believe (for religious or philosophical reasons, or some other reason) that certain conduct is acceptable and they pass laws or render decisions permitting it, they are legislating THEIR morality. They are telling everyone else, "I think it's okay to do (fill in the blank), so go out and do it." If they pass laws or render decisions prohibiting certain conduct, they are likewise legislating their morality. That's how the system works.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: FreshJive

Thanks U2. I knew if I kept throwing sentences up against the board I would score sometime. Just like Antoine from three.

FJ the Volume Poster.

LOL
There's another one

[reeds]

I give up...

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
I give up...

Good.

[reeds]

but im still right and your all wrong

[reeds]

[FreshJive]

Yes KG I am aware that people do, have, and always will make laws and legal judgements on the basis of their religious beliefs. I also believe that it is thier right to do so and I wouldn't be on board with any witch hunt to remove these people from office or take crosses out of flags or God out of the plegde of allegiance and whatnot, because this is a Democracy and the government shall reflect its people. I just don't believe that making legal judgements on religious beliefs is the wisest thing to do, and I believe that more universal truths will be arrived at if one uses real world principles (edit to calarify:conditioned world vs unconditioned world not real vs fake) to decide what the government should do or not do. Its great that we live in a Democracy where a Mormon can be elected and propose that Polygamy be legal, and the rest of us can say, "No" (although I can see the advantages[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]).

My point is that I personally feel that religion is a murkier version of the truth than philosophical reasoning, so if I as legislator decide to seperate my religious beliefs from my political judgements and estimations then I should be able to do so without being considered a fence straddler. To say that "morals are morals so why does it matter how you arrived at them?" is not a very logical position to take IMO, and doesn't hold a legislator to a very high standard. Mr Senator why did you decide to vote for so and so? "God told me to" Could you elaborate? "I don't have to God told me to".

I also don't see a whole lot of difference between prohibiting behavior because it goes against God's laws, and legislating that one must believe in so and so. They both seem like a pretty big imposition.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
but im still right and your all wrong

Haha. Ok reeds, Ok. You've been right the whole time, I just haven't admitted it. So will you stop posting now?

[mavsman55]

Here are some statistics on the reasons why women have abortions:

1. 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
2. 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
3. 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
4. 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
5. 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
6. 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
7. 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
8. 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

All of these reasons are either due to:

A. Personal Inconvenience
or
B. Irresponsibility

Let's have a look:

1. Women having abortions to "postpone" childbearing. Ok. If by postponing the birth you mean killing the baby and destroying it's god-given chance at life just because you'd rather wait a year or two, then that makes total sense. Personal Inconvenience.

2. Women having abortions because they can't afford the baby. Loans? Jobs? If all else fails, orphanages? You guys are "pro-choice"... so where is the baby's choice as to whether or not it dies or grows up in an orphanage? Personal Inconvenience, yet again.

3. Women having abortions because their partner does not want a child. Boo hoo. So the child dies because you are irresponsible, had unprotected sex, and decided you weren't ready for a baby? Get over it. Personal Inconvenience/Irresponsibility

4. Women having abortions because they are too young (their parents or other object to the pregnancy). If the girl is too young to have a baby, why would she have unprotected sex? Remind me again why this is the baby's fault. Irresponsibility

5. Women having abortions because it will disrupt their education/career. Boo Hoo. Don't have a baby if it is at the bottom of your priorities list. Once again, surely not the baby's fault. Personal Inconvenience/Irresponsibility

6. Women having abortions because they don't want any more children. Yea, Ok. Ever heard of condoms? Personal Inconvenience

7. Women having abortions due to the risk of bad fetal health. Clinics? Doctors? You're telling me the best solution to having a sick baby is to kill it? Get real. Personal Inconvenience

8. Women having abortions due to their own health. Yeah. Right. Women kill their babies because they don't want to risk their own health? Personal Inconvenience


There are other reasons why women would have abortions, but none that couldn't be resolved in a way other than killing their own children.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
Here are some statistics on the reasons why women have abortions:

1. 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
2. 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
3. 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
4. 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
5. 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
6. 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
7. 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
8. 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

All of these reasons are either due to:

A. Personal Inconvenience
or
B. Irresponsibility

Let's have a look:

1. Women having abortions to "postpone" childbearing. Ok. If by postponing the birth you mean killing the baby and destroying it's god-given chance at life just because you'd rather wait a year or two, then that makes total sense. Personal Inconvenience.

2. Women having abortions because they can't afford the baby. Loans? Jobs? If all else fails, orphanages? You guys are "pro-choice"... so where is the baby's choice as to whether or not it dies or grows up in an orphanage? Personal Inconvenience, yet again.

3. Women having abortions because their partner does not want a child. Boo hoo. So the child dies because you are irresponsible, had unprotected sex, and decided you weren't ready for a baby? Get over it. Personal Inconvenience/Irresponsibility

4. Women having abortions because they are too young (their parents or other object to the pregnancy). If the girl is too young to have a baby, why would she have unprotected sex? Remind me again why this is the baby's fault. Irresponsibility

5. Women having abortions because it will disrupt their education/career. Boo Hoo. Don't have a baby if it is at the bottom of your priorities list. Once again, surely not the baby's fault. Personal Inconvenience/Irresponsibility

6. Women having abortions because they don't want any more children. Yea, Ok. Ever heard of condoms? Personal Inconvenience

7. Women having abortions due to the risk of bad fetal health. Clinics? Doctors? You're telling me the best solution to having a sick baby is to kill it? Get real. Personal Inconvenience

8. Women having abortions due to their own health. Yeah. Right. Women kill their babies because they don't want to risk their own health? Personal Inconvenience


There are other reasons why women would have abortions, but none that couldn't be resolved in a way other than killing their own children.

How any person would label a women's ending the gestation of an embryo due to "bad fetal health" or danger to the mother's "own health" as being examples of "personal inconvenience" reeks of intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect. you choose.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

How any person would label a women's ending the gestation of an embryo due to "bad fetal health" or danger to the mother's "own health" as being examples of "personal inconvenience" reeks of intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect. you choose.

Ending the gestation of an embryo? Stop beating around the bush Mavdog. It's called killing the child. Is killing a child the best way out of possibly having bad fetal health? It's not only ironic, it's stupid.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Ending the gestation of an embryo? Stop beating around the bush Mavdog. It's called killing the child. Is killing a child the best way out of possibly having bad fetal health? It's not only ironic, it's stupid.

Perhaps you missed out on science classes, but for your edification it is an embryo up to 8 weeks, then it becomes a fetus until birth. The traditional definition of a "child" is a person between the age of birth to puberty BTW.

Is terminating a pregnancy of an embryo or fetus who is physically or mentally deformed "ironic" or "stupid" as you so less than eloquently stated?
No, not in the least, especially if such deformity will provide a very poor quality of life for both mother and child, especially in the cases when there's an extremely short lived existance that causes nothing but physical pain, heartache and financial devastation on the parents, not to mention extreme pain and suffering of the infant from its birth to its natural demise.

It would be certianly ironic IMHO if one denies to a mother the right to terminate her pregnancy when she knows of such deformity, only to force her to give birth to a baby who cannot survive but for a short period of time, having the negative affects such would bring on all concerned, only to have the identical conclusion to the life of the baby, death.

[mavsman55]

Oh come on. You guys complain about Bush killing one mentally insane <u>murderer</u> but are entirely in support of killing innocent ones before they are born. I have trouble seeing how the best way to deal with mental retardation or deformation is murder.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
Oh come on. You guys complain about Bush killing one mentally insane <u>murderer</u> but are entirely in support of killing innocent ones before they are born.

missed the point eh?
the complaint is about the inconsistentcy of NOT commuting a mentally deficient (very much different than "mentally insane") person's sentence of death and thus allowing, and actually in some cases reveling in, their execution, while at the same time professing opposition to a women's right to terminate their pregnancy in the name of saving the life of the fetus.

I have trouble seeing how the best way to deal with mental retardation or deformation is murder.

first, "murder" is a legal definition, if you wish to extend the use to terminated preganancies it certainly could just as well be used accurately for what GWBush did as Governor with many of those executed.
second, it is very easy for a person on the outside of the issue of a deformed baby to look at those whose lives are radically changed by their responsibility of that child and "have trouble seeing" thru their eyes. I know I was fortunate not to have to deal with that situation, those that must deal with it must make their own decisions. I certainly don't believe I, or you, should make it for them.

[Usually Lurkin]

So far in this thread the pro-choicers have suggested that it might be better to kill people that might become poor, kill people who's mothers might not love them, kill people that might become sick, or retarded, and kill people that might become deformed all because, they say, it'll be better for them if they never lived at all.

Come on, that's a joke, right? And you're trying to say that that's the mother's choice to make? As if some baby's mother will be able to predict whether or not their child, sometime in the distant future, will decide that his or her life was never worth living - and that they would never change their mind to decide life was worth living.

You can't argue that killing a fetus will be good for the individual who's life is cut short - because you don't know what that individual's life would have been like.
That "choice" that you speak of takes the "choice" of what life will be like out of the hands of the only person who has the power to determine what that life will be like.

[mavsman55]

I'm waiting for somebody to respond to this one. Way to silence the crowd, UL.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
So far in this thread the pro-choicers have suggested that it might be better to kill people that might become poor, kill people who's mothers might not love them, kill people that might become sick, or retarded, and kill people that might become deformed all because, they say, it'll be better for them if they never lived at all.

You can read and discern just what you wish; what I have read is the undeniable fact that there are unwanted/unplanned/unsafe pregnancies where the mother, the father the family, and sometimes, when there is no chance of a quality life for the baby, are better off if the preganancy were terminated.

Come on, that's a joke, right? And you're trying to say that that's the mother's choice to make? As if some baby's mother will be able to predict whether or not their child, sometime in the distant future, will decide that his or her life was never worth living - and that they would never change their mind to decide life was worth living.

NO, this is no joke, nobody is laughing. And yes, it is the mother's choice to make, she is the one who carrys and gives birth to the child. Should we sacrifice the life of the mother for that of the child, and how can that contrqdiction of "protecting life" be justified? What if the baby is born with no chance of long term survival? What if the baby is born with defects that it can't live? What justification is there for not allowing this unfortunate situation to be ended?

You can't argue that killing a fetus will be good for the individual who's life is cut short - because you don't know what that individual's life would have been like.
That "choice" that you speak of takes the "choice" of what life will be like out of the hands of the only person who has the power to determine what that life will be like.

you presume the child will be able to "determine what [their] life will be like". They may not ever be able if they have severe mental defects, and may not be physically able if their physical defects limit their life to a short period.
One can make such an argument.