|
Post by millring on Oct 28, 2006 10:19:04 GMT -5
I guess what I am having trouble getting across here is that the fight keeps getting framed as though there are extremists on both ends of the spectrum -- and that's all that matters -- that's "balance".
The problem lies in the fact that the rule of law reflects the views of only one of those extremes and it reflects the views and values of NONE in the middle -- by your own admission that those who want any abortion at any time for any reason are extremists. But it seems to not bother those who hold your view, that those extremists have their way in public policy. On the other hand, it seems to bother you greatly that the pro-life side expresses its "extremism" even though they have had no effect on public policy. We still have any abortion at any time for any reason.
We currently have no limitation on abortion.
Those who are pro-choice but think life begins earlier than birth do nothing but let those babies get killed. Those moderates on the other side of the issue continue to fight for compromise without success.
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 28, 2006 10:55:16 GMT -5
I guess the fights I see are never about compromise, always about ramming unrealistic rules and laws down the throat of the American public. I just don't see the compromise that you do coming from the Pro-life folks, as you don't see it coming from the pro-choice folks...tough call, we all see what we want, not throwing stones mind you, just calling it as I see it. Bottom line is that for there to be NO ABORTION allowed would be a terrible thing in my opinions....As I get older I am more against any abortion than as a youth, but I am certainly not what a pro-life person would call in the fold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2006 11:03:23 GMT -5
"Bottom line is that for there to be NO ABORTION allowed would be a terrible thing in my opinions....As I get older I am more against any abortion than as a youth, but I am certainly not what a pro-life person would call in the fold."
Guitone, I am close to where you are on this debate. It dawns on me, though, that what Millring is saying (and I hope I'm wrong) is that aborion, for any reason, even for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, is wrong. I don't think I could reconcile that with a moderate position, which is why I hope I'm wrong as to how I intepreted his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 28, 2006 11:07:38 GMT -5
Almost all the fights have been about compromise. The late term abortion debate was about compromise. The parental consent laws have been about compromise.
And, again, the state of things as they are now is as extreme as it can get. Any movement at all is not only compromise -- it seems to be the will of the majority. Still, it can't get done.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 28, 2006 11:08:43 GMT -5
No. I may not be able to express myself well, but that is CLEARLY not what I am saying.
I am saying that any abortion at any time for any reason is the current state of law in our country and it is extreme -- not very many people believe that that is a moral level of allowance -- even among those who call themselves "moderately pro-choice".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2006 11:25:08 GMT -5
"I am saying that any abortion at any time for any reason is the current state of law in our country and it is extreme -- not very many people believe that that is a moral level of allowance -- even among those who call themselves "moderately pro-choice"."
Maybe I'm misinformed here, but can't individual states pass restraints on abortion within their borders? Or would this trigger a court challange?
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 28, 2006 12:12:34 GMT -5
"I am saying that any abortion at any time for any reason is the current state of law in our country and it is extreme -- not very many people believe that that is a moral level of allowance -- even among those who call themselves "moderately pro-choice"." Maybe I'm misinformed here, but can't individual states pass restraints on abortion within their borders? Or would this trigger a court challange? I thought some states did pass legislation...
|
|
|
Post by davidhanners on Oct 28, 2006 17:43:43 GMT -5
What I hear you saying, David, is that, unless one agrees with your solutions to problems, one does not want to solve those problems. And the only way to be considered "empathetic" is to agree with your solutions. In a word, Millring, yes. The GOP has controlled Congress since 1994, and they've had the White House for six years. They have yet to put forward any practical initiatives to deal with those problems in any serious manner. That's plenty of time. If the conservative movement wanted to address those problems, they've had plenty of opportunity. They have cut taxes for the rich, though. Got us into an unnecessary war. Pissed off most of our allies. And we got that Terri Schaivo law passed quick enough to make your head spin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2006 19:41:21 GMT -5
I think if you guys were a woman, if you were raped abortion is not wrong. Would you carry that baby 9 months in the world? I htink it's funny when i see guys so adament about abortion. As if you'd have any idea what it would be like to be pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 28, 2006 19:48:50 GMT -5
Whether or not I'm a woman (I'm not) I wouldn't think it wrong to have an abortion if raped. Curiously though, my mother and sister did not agree with me. And when my sister was raped at seveteen, and subsequently late for her next period, she and my mom decided that they would raise the baby. She ended up not being pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 28, 2006 23:38:36 GMT -5
I think as a man it is impossible to say what you might want as a woman....it is a whole other ball game....
|
|