Arizona and abortion : life doesn't start when you thought it did
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
People really do ignore logic when they have... no leg to stand on.
You have literally no point what so ever, how do politicians become politicians, they campaign to become politicians, how do they pass laws, they campaign to get them added. This is entirely campaigning, that is how bills get MADE and pushed on the agenda and voted on. Both before AND after the Bill is either passed or vetoed the republicans will campaign on this issue, in Arizona and elsewhere.
Senators and the guvernor
Thanks for calling me the idiot when you can't understand really simple things. Republicans are free to not get an abortion however I'll restate their stand point for the simple folk once more. Their belief is that a child is a person basically from conception thus they BELIEVE IT IS MURDER and as such are campaigning TO STOP MURDERS. Are you saying the liberal left would never campaign to stop murders because that sounds, daft.
It boils down to this, they think murders are occurring, and they are trying to stop them, I absolutely in no way agree with their beliefs, but if I think legal murder is going on, I would fully want to stop it on every level in every way possible.
Then lets be more specific on the point you quoted that I was utterly wrong about. hmmm, that's right the bit you quoted wasn't me even talking about abortion but about every persons right to campaign for whatever the hell they like, and others peoples right to campaign the polar opposite view as well. Most laws prevent people doing things, or allow people to do things that previously weren't allowed. Again I'll point out that I believe in their RIGHT TO ASK for the law to be changed AND the OPPOSITIONS RIGHT TO ASK FOR IT NOT TO BE CHANGED.
But again I see, you believe because their view contradict's your view, they should automatically be denied the right, in a democracy, to have their view heard?
Law's are, and have almost always been made upon individual groups wishes, prohibition, hands up who believes the vast majority believed and wanted this law passed? Nope, this is life, and freedom and most definitely America. People have always been free to pass their own beliefs into law, or I should say more definitely that people have always been free to CAMPAIGN over whatever the hell they want. Pro choice people have exactly every right to be heard exactly as loudly as pro life people. Pro choice people ARE campaigning, if the state is passing a bill, there will be both political reasons AND a good deal of public support.
Ignoring the fact that a decent portion of the american population is pro life is absurd, and again ignoring the reality of what is happening.
One group of people is vehemently pro life, most of them believe abortion is murder and a lot of other people in america do as well. Pro lifers are free to campaign and it would appear have been successful in gaining votes, pro choices have been exactly and completely as free to campaign against it and it would appear, unfortunately, to have been unsuccessful. Sometimes some people would suggest that means potentially even a majority of people WANT this law(or want more restrictions but are themselves very pro choice).
Just because just about everyone in this thread thinks the law is bad, doesn't mean most of the people in Arizona do. Yet again I'll point out, a view held by one person, or one billion, everyone has the SAME RIGHT to campaign for whatever the hell they want. Legalising heroine, legalising weed, making it a law for everyone to wear a hat made of potatoes every Tuesday, making it illegal to wear flip flops with socks on, making abortion legal or illegal.
Again I completely do not agree with the republicans, but I can find no possible logical reason to believe they shouldn't be allowed to ask for this law, vote on it and ask for it to be passed. If 99.9% of the Arizona population all stood out side while the vote went on agreeing they do not want it, the republican senators would have voted against it, and that is fine, even laws that have no chance of being passed the person behind them still has every right to ask for it. In this case the republicans voted yes, either with support of their constituency, or against it. People had their right to vote for a pro life senator, or vote against pro life senators. Ultimately this law will either be passed or not passed based on a significant amount of support from the public, or complete lack of any support.
Just because I'm against it doesn't mean I automatically assume most of Arizona is, and if they are, how did so many pro lifers get into power, and if they hate it, vote them out and have pro choice senators pass a new bill next time around. This is how the system SHOULD work.
[FnG]magnolia;21673485 said:
You have literally no point what so ever, how do politicians become politicians, they campaign to become politicians, how do they pass laws, they campaign to get them added. This is entirely campaigning, that is how bills get MADE and pushed on the agenda and voted on. Both before AND after the Bill is either passed or vetoed the republicans will campaign on this issue, in Arizona and elsewhere.
Senators and the guvernor
Thanks for calling me the idiot when you can't understand really simple things. Republicans are free to not get an abortion however I'll restate their stand point for the simple folk once more. Their belief is that a child is a person basically from conception thus they BELIEVE IT IS MURDER and as such are campaigning TO STOP MURDERS. Are you saying the liberal left would never campaign to stop murders because that sounds, daft.
It boils down to this, they think murders are occurring, and they are trying to stop them, I absolutely in no way agree with their beliefs, but if I think legal murder is going on, I would fully want to stop it on every level in every way possible.
Then lets be more specific on the point you quoted that I was utterly wrong about. hmmm, that's right the bit you quoted wasn't me even talking about abortion but about every persons right to campaign for whatever the hell they like, and others peoples right to campaign the polar opposite view as well. Most laws prevent people doing things, or allow people to do things that previously weren't allowed. Again I'll point out that I believe in their RIGHT TO ASK for the law to be changed AND the OPPOSITIONS RIGHT TO ASK FOR IT NOT TO BE CHANGED.
But again I see, you believe because their view contradict's your view, they should automatically be denied the right, in a democracy, to have their view heard?
Law's are, and have almost always been made upon individual groups wishes, prohibition, hands up who believes the vast majority believed and wanted this law passed? Nope, this is life, and freedom and most definitely America. People have always been free to pass their own beliefs into law, or I should say more definitely that people have always been free to CAMPAIGN over whatever the hell they want. Pro choice people have exactly every right to be heard exactly as loudly as pro life people. Pro choice people ARE campaigning, if the state is passing a bill, there will be both political reasons AND a good deal of public support.
Ignoring the fact that a decent portion of the american population is pro life is absurd, and again ignoring the reality of what is happening.
One group of people is vehemently pro life, most of them believe abortion is murder and a lot of other people in america do as well. Pro lifers are free to campaign and it would appear have been successful in gaining votes, pro choices have been exactly and completely as free to campaign against it and it would appear, unfortunately, to have been unsuccessful. Sometimes some people would suggest that means potentially even a majority of people WANT this law(or want more restrictions but are themselves very pro choice).
Just because just about everyone in this thread thinks the law is bad, doesn't mean most of the people in Arizona do. Yet again I'll point out, a view held by one person, or one billion, everyone has the SAME RIGHT to campaign for whatever the hell they want. Legalising heroine, legalising weed, making it a law for everyone to wear a hat made of potatoes every Tuesday, making it illegal to wear flip flops with socks on, making abortion legal or illegal.
Again I completely do not agree with the republicans, but I can find no possible logical reason to believe they shouldn't be allowed to ask for this law, vote on it and ask for it to be passed. If 99.9% of the Arizona population all stood out side while the vote went on agreeing they do not want it, the republican senators would have voted against it, and that is fine, even laws that have no chance of being passed the person behind them still has every right to ask for it. In this case the republicans voted yes, either with support of their constituency, or against it. People had their right to vote for a pro life senator, or vote against pro life senators. Ultimately this law will either be passed or not passed based on a significant amount of support from the public, or complete lack of any support.
Just because I'm against it doesn't mean I automatically assume most of Arizona is, and if they are, how did so many pro lifers get into power, and if they hate it, vote them out and have pro choice senators pass a new bill next time around. This is how the system SHOULD work.
Fair point, but do you doubt for one second that the lawmakers that are pushing these three bills are doing so precisely because of their religious beliefs?
I am shocked and appalled at the stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and wickedness of these laws, and those that are passing them. Stone age thinking in the 21st century...
The problem is one of the fundamental issues with democracy, without the proper protections it allows the tyranny of the majority over the minority. In this case pro-life majority are being allowed to restrict access to abortion for a minority (pregnant pro-choice women). Not really sure this is actually how the system should work.
If you did so then not only would you be a couple of dozen posts late it would also be ignoring the fact that the medical profession know an accept it is an inaccurate method of working out he date.
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
Exactly - it's their (largely religiously based) belief that abortion is murder. What right should that give them to demand the law is changed to suit their beliefs in a secular country with plenty of people who dont share that belief?
For example, should I as a meat-eater be perfectly happy if vegetarian groups are campaigning (and succeeding) to have laws passed to ban eating meat because they believe it is murder? Or if a religious cult believed computers are evil and managed to have laws passed banning them? Would you stand by their right to have their beliefs written into law then? Or rather do you think certain things should remain a matter of personal choice in a democratic, secular, 'free' nation and be seperate from law? If the latter, why take a different opinion regarding abortion?
As you said above - "Their belief", we should not legislate on a group of peoples "Belief" , if they have evidence to back up whatever they wish to change - sure, but the law should not bend to the will based on a belief.
They think.
People who campaign to get the law changed to CHANGE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES - without evidence to back that up should be ignored.
Person A campaigning to dictate the life of person B
IS NOT the same as person B campaigning for person A to leave them alone.
People have the right to ask, but should be ignored because infringing on the personal liberty of others without evidence to back up the argument is tyranny of the majority.
By your logic paedophiles could campaign to allow child rape & if enough moved to one area could legalise it.
But we don't allow that, why? - because the majority don't have the right to infringe on the liberty of the minority.
The opinion that a collection of cells is a "sacred human life" is just an opinion, neither is it backed by anything.
No, they are free to say they want to dictate other peoples lives, but they should NEVER be allowed to - because as I've said 10,000 times that's tyranny of the majority & not democracy.
If in the UK we all voted to ban Christianity I'd be against that also - why?, because the state has no right to override personal choice.
As we have no hard scientific date, or proof of the "sanctity of life" at all - in these cases personal liberty must be upheld.
Who gives a **** what a majority of people want? - seriously? - do you honestly think that's how government should work?, baying to the ill-informed opinions of the masses? - as I said earlier, If we all voted to boot out say... you, would that be cool? - or do the rights of the individual need to be protected against the wishes of the majority?.
You are missing the point, it doesn't matter what we or the people Arizona think en masse, what matters is that the rights of the individual are protected.
You are still missing the point, people should be free to campaign for whatever ,but they should also be ignored if it's something which infringes on the personal liberty of others (when evidence does not side with one group in particular).
Read above, still missing the point.
No, the law should never be used to beat down the rights of the minority in any area.
But this isn't a clear cut case in which one group can force a subjective viewpoint on another.
Many fertilised eggs get passed through the system - quite often during the process of conception, by the logic of these people all of these cases are deaths, why don't we hold funerals for these "people"?.
Why drawn the line there?, why does an egg need to be fertilised to be human?, every single sperm cell has the potential to become a person - but we don't consider somebody jacking off mass genocide.
This is a case of one group (religious people mostly) trying to force a religious view onto a wider population against there wishes.
Democracy isn't tyranny of the majority & cases like this highlight why a secular society is required to defend the personal freedoms of individuals against groups (religious or otherwise).
Nobody is forcing Christian's to have abortions.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That may be so i.e. they may believe that every abortion is legalised murder or they may believe simply that it's not an acceptable thing to occur for any other reason. However it's perhaps a somewhat incongruous position when you note that many of the people most against abortion are equally strongly in favour of capital punishment which could as easily be described as legalised murder.
Now no-one said that everyone should have a completely logically consistent viewpoint on everything but the juxtaposition of the issues strikes me as being worthy of comment.
Then again you could argue it's equally as odd the other way round perhaps given I'm generally pro-abortion (or at least pro-choice) and anti-death penalty. I could give the arguments to attempt to rationalise my position but there's no universal metric to say my reasoning is worth any more than someone elses.
Fair point, but do you doubt for one second that the lawmakers that are pushing these three bills are doing so precisely because of their religious beliefs?
I am shocked and appalled at the stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and wickedness of these laws, and those that are passing them. Stone age thinking in the 21st century...
I think they are doing it for a range of reasons, the foremost one being morality....which is entirely subjective. The point being is that just because someone has a set of morals that include a pro life stance doesn't mean that they are religious or even if they are that the religion has instilled those moral values on them whereas they would not hold them otherwise.
A very close friend of mine is very active in the pro-life arena, she holds that abortion of any type is effectively murder and that life begins at the moment of conception.....yet she is a rampant atheist, so much so that she was amongst the protests against the Pope etc...(you can imagine the kind of after dinner conversation in our houses sometimes..
)I am a supporter of choice, a woman has to be and should be in control of her body.....however I can understand why others hold other opinions.
As for others talking about "We should not legislate because of peoples beliefs" is ignoring that we do it all the time, and it isn't that belief or moral position should not influence legislation, it should be considered along with any other evidence and or opinion....if it has merit then it should be legislated, if not then it should not, if it is immoral then it should be legislated against....
What we are ultimately arguing about is two opposite moral positions, arguing about religion just detracts from the actual issue which is when does it become immoral to terminate a pregnancy?
Last edited:
Yes, well even Christopher Hitchens said that he was involved in the pro-life movement, you don't need to make the point that non-religious folk can be opposed to abortion. Again.I think they are doing it for a range of reasons, the foremost one being morality....which is entirely subjective. The point being is that just because someone has a set of morals that include a pro life stance doesn't mean that they are religious or even if they are that the religion has instilled those moral values on them whereas they would not hold them otherwise.
A very close friend of mine is very active in the pro-life arena, she holds that abortion of any type is effectively murder and that life begins at the moment of conception.....yet she is a rampant atheist, so much so that she was amongst the protests against the Pope etc...(you can imagine the kind of after dinner conversation in our houses sometimes..
And I dream of after dinner conversations of that ilk. Just for the hell of it, the best after dinner conversation I had was in a Cuban dissident's flat in Havana, arguing with this guy called Michael about the whether or not the Cuban revolution was still alive, whether it was good, and how it compares to Western capitalism. It was pretty one sided, but epic, none the less.
I simply asked you if you believed the legislators that are pushing these laws, were doing so for religious reasons, you said that you 'think they are doing it for a lot of reasons, for foremost one being morality....which is entirely subjective'. Ignoring the fact that I don't think morality is entirely subjective, do you think that if these people are evangelicals (and given the extent to which I have studied American politics, the makeup of various interest groups within the legislatures throughout the country, etc, I am fairly confident that they are), they would distinguish between their religion and their morality?
It could also cover the gender of the child though which is something we frequently do not disclose in this country - my local hospital has tried to withhold that information for our last two children. Fortunately they were wasting their time as I can read the scans better than they can - good job really they missed something really important ...
These are not mutually exclusive conditions you just need to remove the murder as it is a legal killing and therefore not murder by definition. Strange how people are happy for medical staff to weigh up ethical decisions relating to life/death all the time but when it comes to unborn children and people choosing to end their own life they suddenly have to think in absolutes.