Margaret Sanger--Halo tipping a bit?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So do we have any anti-abortion/death folks (or against a woman's right to choose;keeping all parties happy) that have adopted a child that was to be aborted?

Any?

I know of two families. They walk the walk, and strangely... they dont talk about it much. Dont hold up signs and shout people down. They will tell you if asked, but no advertising.

I've adopted three horses to save them from slaughter, dozens of cats and dogs over the years...never was in position to adopt a child...sorry that I don't meet your standard!

[Danzig]

i find it odd that the democrats generally support the right to choose--but then get on their high horse about the war overseas, and about capital punishment. it seems they, and the republicans in turn, don't always use logic. if a soldiers life is precious, why not a fetus? if one is sacrosanct, why not the other?
as for the ruling by the supreme court, i disagree that the right to an abortion is granted by the constitution. the right to privacy--yes, i agree that is.

as for pro-choice/pro-life, i think they are both misnomers. everyone obviously believes we should all be free to make choices in our lives--on the other hand, who here is anti-life?!

the right to an abortion has been granted. to make it (as hillary said--and on this point i agree) safe, legal and rare is what i would say. if you don't feel it is right, well don't go get one. in that regard, it's much like the right to keep and bear arms--doesn't mean you HAVE to own a gun.


but as for the statement that you can't be against abortion if you have never adopted, i don't think that's a fair statement. people take stands every day on issues that have never affected them personally.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i find it odd that the democrats generally support the right to choose--but then get on their high horse about the war overseas, and about capital punishment. it seems they, and the republicans in turn, don't always use logic. if a soldiers life is precious, why not a fetus? if one is sacrosanct, why not the other?

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Each of us has the ultimate decision regarding our own bodies but if that is a human being inside a woman, does he/she not have the same right? We talk about a woman's right to choose, but we deny that right to the fetus/baby...statistically speaking, half of which are female. To me, what the abortionists are saying is that some people have rights and some don't and society gets to choose which lives are more valuable.

I believe that the basic flaw in the argument that you're both making (and I'm mostly just speaking for myself here) is that most people who talk about a woman's right to choose vs. a fetus's or soldiers dying while fetuses are "dying" is that those people don't believe that a fetus is a person deserving of the same rights that a pregnant woman or a soldier deserves.

It's not hypocritical to be pro-choice and still cry about dead soldiers in a stupid war. One is life that is being taken, and one is not a life so therefore cannot be taken.

That obviously brings it to that place where nobody ever budges on where exactly life starts and when an embryo/fetus/womb inhabiter earns its rights as a human being. But if you don't believe that it's a life in there, then it's not really a problem to advocate for safe and legal abortion while decrying the loss of life in a war.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I believe that the basic flaw in the argument that you're both making (and I'm mostly just speaking for myself here) is that most people who talk about a woman's right to choose vs. a fetus's or soldiers dying while fetuses are "dying" is that those people don't believe that a fetus is a person deserving of the same rights that a pregnant woman or a soldier deserves.

It's not hypocritical to be pro-choice and still cry about dead soldiers in a stupid war. One is life that is being taken, and one is not a life so therefore cannot be taken.

That obviously brings it to that place where nobody ever budges on where exactly life starts and when an embryo/fetus/womb inhabiter earns its rights as a human being. But if you don't believe that it's a life in there, then it's not really a problem to advocate for safe and legal abortion while decrying the loss of life in a war.

my point was more towards the fact that our soldiers volunteer for their duty, and a fetus doesn't. yet they decry a volunteer losing that which he willingly gave.


but to clarify, i am pro-choice. but i think that it is a huge issue, and yet another that has plenty of shouting on both sides, with no real solution--like so many things, there is no pleasing everyone. or maybe anyone.