Comments on: Abortion and Moral Personhood

By: hey yo

hey yo — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:37:27 +0000

I kinda feel the same but I think if I ran for office I’d be a democrat. Republicans/neocons are big government like liberals except worse they think we should invade foreign countries for ‘freedom’. Also there are blue dog democrats/libertarians democrats in congress who are more for the free market.

By: yo

yo — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:07:58 +0000

The problem is I don’t like liberals poor economic ideas.

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:25:49 +0000

THe ‘grossness’ argument made a lot of sense, especially after the recent OpEd piece from Nick Kristoff about the feeling of disgust being critical in not just how ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ think but also how they feel.

If the whole reaction is not a rational one, then explanations and rationale will make no difference in changing attitudes. Not, that one shouldn’t try, just that the approach might need to change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html

By: hmm

hmm — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:20:12 +0000

Well I was hoping he comment on the ‘moral transfer’ rebuttle I gave so I can see where I stand on the subject.

By: Theorizer

Theorizer — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:17:25 +0000

Wow. Ok Hmmm. The first time I was replying I wasn’t replying to your comment, it just so happens that you used that name when I was just using the word. And in case you haven’t realized there are thousands of children in the world dying and in need of a good home, so why bring a child into this world if it truly isn’t wanted? And you can’t possibly think that someone can debate the issue of Abortion without tying in Religion, because that what the whole thing is about really, if we want to make it illegal just because of morality or religious reasons. Also when I wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”( excerpt from the Declaration of in dependence), i was trying to emphasis the Pursuit of happiness and how that can be taken away….. HA. You say i was using old arguments, but maybe I had to say them again but in a different way so you could understand it, which you obviously didn’t. Please just because you are getting all pissy because Saint Gasoline doesn’t want to talk to you, don’t take it out on me. Thank you very much : )

By: hmmm

hmmm — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:22:10 +0000

First off your arguments aren’t good at all theorizer. I’m not going to really address them. You ask when its going to stop taking rights away? Well first off that isn’t the issue so your going off topic.

>It is not fair to bring a child in to this world when they cannot be cared for and loved the way it should be.

I don’t think so, the child rather exist to never exist at all. Let us not forget adoption where there are 10 good families wanting a child that has been aborted. None of what you say stands at all. Your just spouting your own opinion and no facts.

if abortion should be legal, where is that separation?
Abortion isn’t a religious issue. Many atheist are prolife advocates. It is a moral issue and that is why saint gasoline tried to use moral consideration argument.

And well, there is a much bigger problem there when this starts to happen, because where will it stop?
I’d agree with you if we were discussing government expansion taking over our lives. Socialism and whatnot. That is what you should be worried about. Abortion is debateable because does the right exist in the first place? Just like does the right for me to murder you exist in the first place?

Another point about how weak your argument is:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”( excerpt from the Declaration of in dependence).

That actually defends prolife point because it shows that if we are created which happens at conception then the unborn baby should have the unalienable Rights.

All civilize societies restrict individual freedoms when that “choice” would harm an innocent person. Do men have the freedom of choice to rape a woman if that is his choice? After all, it’s his body, why do we have a right to tell him what to do with it? Why do we have a right to impose our morals on him? By emphasizing a rapist’s right to choose, we clearly are completely ignoring the rights of the woman.

Your using old arguments and I was hoping saint gasoline would respond to my transfer of morality. I guess I got him on that issue. However, he made me reconsider first 8 weeks before it feels pain.

By: Theorizer

Theorizer — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:05:47 +0000

Hmmm. What I was trying to say basically is that the Government real should have no power, they shouldn’t be allowed to warrant whether or not abortion is “morally” right. Especial when the, main argument is religion and even morals, because every single person has their own set of morals and guidelines that they follow in their life i.e. free will. The first amendment of this country’s constitution, The United States of America, clearly states, that there is to be a separation of church and state. If we have to ask ourselves, if abortion should be legal, where is that separation? It seems as though the line between decisions made for our countries well being and our countries eternal souls has become blurred. When we start to mix religion and government together, problems can arise. That is why our forefathers decided to keep the two separated. The decision to have an abortion in no way, shape or form harms anyone, because technically almost 30 of our states press charges for the injury of a pregnant woman, not the actual termination of the pregnancy. So, the only reason why the government would become involved is because of religious reasons. And well, there is a much bigger problem there when this starts to happen, because where will it stop? First, it is the abolishing a woman’s right to free will, to make her own decisions, which affect her personally. Then it leads to putting gays, into concentration camps in order to save their souls from eternal damnation. It starts with one act but when and where will the line be drawn if ever. To take away a person’s right to make their own decisions, especially ones that could potentially ruin their lives, is not only wrong but it goes against the constitution. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”( excerpt from the Declaration of in dependence). And if having the child ruins any chances the parent would have to finish high school or go to college, how is that mother supposed to support that child?
When a single woman is forced to have a child she does not want and cannot afford to have the quality of life for this child should be questioned. “Today, it costs as much as $289,380 to raise a child a year, excluding any kind of formal education”(Jean Chatzky). Most women looking into abortion ask themselves what kind of life they can give that child. If they cannot afford to feed or house that child, what then? They die at the age of five from starvation and the cold. A child should not be brought in to this world, when they simply would not have a chance to live it because of their mother’s hardships. Be it from one stupid, irresponsible night or the horrors of rape. It is not fair to bring a child in to this world when they cannot be cared for and loved the way it should be.

By: hmmm

hmmm — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:42:50 +0000

Well in any case, Theorizer, if it was religion alone then I’d all be for abortions. I was debating gasoline on partial birth and see if he can prove to me a good argument for it. The problem is after those weeks it is under consideration and it should be illegal on moral obligation basis.

By: hmmm

hmmm — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:23:23 +0000

Hey gasonline when you get a chance I’d like you to respond to my last post.

By: Theorizer

Theorizer — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:38:43 +0000

Hmmm. All I am reading, like the poster said; a bunch of science jargon. As one of your quite amusing tests said, I rely more on my gut feeling and belief system than logical reasoning; to be exact I think you called me an “ass-hat”. The whole controversy on abortion, I find, is a waste of time. Our fore-fathers even signed a big piece of paper that said that we are to have a separation of church and state. And to listen to SOME not all of these Christian hypocrites go on and on about how it’s against GODs will, well where is that lovely, I guess it’s a big piece of string by now, separation. Then you get the whole morality thing mixed in with it. The controversy over whether or not Abortion should be legal or not is, to say the least, Messy, messy, messy. It’s worse than a 4 year old left alone in a white living room, with white rugs and couches and pudding; we all know what is going to happen. But if we just stopped arguing and stopped following our monkey DNA, by throwing poop all over the place then we would all be better off.
Here it is a perfectly logical way to solve this debacle, allow abortion but have a cutoff date, so that doctors aren’t pulling limbs of the unborn child out of the mother. Of course after the politicians and everyone gets through with it the law description will probably sound a lot fancier and less crude but still mean the same thing. In the end, it is the woman body, it’s her life that is being altered not anyone else’s, not these whacky Christian protesters, not the governments but hers. The fact that we as a people are even arguing over these just shows how much we are letting our poop slinging brothers DNA take control.
And a little tid-bit of information for you: even though I find you to be quite brilliant in a very twisted and cynical way, aka scientific, if you want to be heard and understood try adding a dictionary link or something to your blog. Please take into consideration that the newspaper is written at a fourth grade level and even then some people still have a hard time understanding it. You have some following. Very interesting ideas and your post have made me think a little bit differently, so keep writing and I’ll keep on following.