posted by:
tfruge1 (
reply)
post date:
10.27.06 (8:14 pm)
Its not that Democrats are in favor of abortions. No one wants women to have abortions. What Democrats believe is the right for a woman to choose. All the Democrats stand for is to not allow the government control what one does to their own body.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.27.06 (8:22 pm)
Reply to: tfruge1
But, I think the radical feminist element of the Democrat party would see things differently. They would give lipservice to your statement. But I think the matter of truth, where true intentions are revealed, is when any reasonable restiction is sought. Abortion on demand, with no restrictions, is the mantra. Parental consent? Viability? Partial-Birth? Sonograms? There is no reasonableness, no room for compromise. And if you study the basics of Democrats For Life, they believe the current Democrat Party is Pro-Abortion.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (5:33 am)
I am a Democrat - or I usually vote Democrat. I am pro-life. I am pro-choice.
How about wiping out 95% of world hunger over the next ten years? A loftier, less intrusive, and far more important goal. How about making sure that there are REAL parents for the kids we have sitting in foster homes and other places for kids without Moms and Dads.
Your comment on tblurt just now sort of bears out what I was saying when you started this series.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (6:45 am)
Reply to: surrogate
I'm thinking any statement I've made on t-blurt is fairly benign. To what are your referring?
Your counter to those who desire any kind of limits on abortion is not reasonable. As I understand, you say we must first successfully tackle all the world's problems and show ourselves to be thoroughly engaged in all the great ethical/social/moral challenges before we have a right to limit in any way the freedom of abortion. And of course I can use that counter-argument for any issue we may discuss. What's the old saying- "Two wrongs don't make a right." Just because we have yet to feed every hungry person in the world does not change the fact that partial-birth abortion is often the taking of an innocent and viable human life. It is true that we have not perfected the adoption of every parentless child, etc., etc. It seems to me there is a hierarchy of ethical issues. Unneccessary taking of human life would surely be at the top.
I'll turn the tables on you. You should not address the war in Iraq with the deaths of civilians and combatants until we first solve the dilemma of unnecessary deaths from abortion. You don't think that is an unfair argument, do you?
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (9:49 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
the reason it's an unreasonable argument is that the people alive and kicking, walking the planet now, can be helped without infringing on anyone's privacy rights.
First things first.
posted by:
laydeepulse (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (3:46 pm)
Reply to: tfruge1
what one does to their OWN body?
what about the body of the child they are killing during that invasive procedure?
posted by:
tfruge1 (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (5:28 pm)
Reply to: laydeepulse
I never said that I am happy women have abortions. I wish the procedure would have never been discovered or considered legal.
What I do have a problem with is the government trying to control us. I think it should be a decision that the woman has to make. Even though it is definitely not the best decision made, it still should be your choice to make it.
Before you go and start attacking me, lets hear my views on abortion. I think that human life does not begin until the fetus establishes a heartbeat. This usually happens around 3 weeks of pregnancy. If a woman chooses to get an abortion before this time then I believe she should have that choice. Anytime after that I consider it being the killing of an innocent unborn child and should be illegal.
People should still have the right to make their own choices even though it is not the best ones sometimes.
posted by:
laydeepulse (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (6:07 pm)
Reply to: tfruge1
so i just re read my responce, i honestly did not mean to sound attacking to you. i have just heard that justification from so many people. and i have strong convictions against abortion, for anyone anytime, i dont attack people about their beleifs though, and i realize that my comment sounded attacking, i apologize.
posted by:
tfruge1 (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (6:33 pm)
Reply to: laydeepulse
You did not need to apologize. I respect your beliefs on this matter because I know you mean well in them. You brought up some very interesting questions. I enjoy being challenged in my beliefs and I encourage the debate. I think that as long as anyone has a view on an issue and actually has facts and logics to back up their opinions, then they should have to right to express them and challege others with different opinions just as you did.
posted by:
laydeepulse (
reply)
post date:
10.28.06 (9:41 pm)
Reply to: tfruge1
yes but challenging and attacking are different and i didnt want to come across that way.
btw, thanks pastordave for opening this debate ;-)
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (2:35 am)
Reply to: tfruge1
But, your strong conviction that abortion after 3 weeks of pregnancy should be illegal, is at odds with your party. What would Kate Michaelman say, or Nancy Pelosi? I believe there are not 5 Democrats in the US Senate who would agree with you.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (2:40 am)
Reply to: laydeepulse
I think fruge is fine with your offer to challenge/debate. He seems to have a genuinely open mind, a rarity these days. I appreciate that about him, why is why I very much enjoy reading and commenting on his blog.
You are strong in your convictions. It is very good that you are willing to share what you believe. And I still think your position on this and many other issues will evolve in the next several years- although, I know, you disagree.
posted by:
tfruge1 (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (6:28 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
I could careless what my party believes. I don't base my beliefs on what my party believes. I pretty much agree with them on just about every other issue.
posted by:
laydeepulse (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (1:29 pm)
i have a very open mind......just very narrow ;-)
and as far as my beliefs changing, i obviously cannot say they wont, simply becuase i will never knwo what tomorrow will bring, only god does. BUT i do know this, my convictions are from my religious beleifs, i knwo those will not change..............so by transitive property, i assume they will not change
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (3:03 pm)
Reply to: laydeepulse Oh dear, and you're what? -in high school? No offene, but your beliefs WILL change over the years no matter what you think now, or what they're based on, or how you interpret them. They will change because YOU will change. Sorry, that's a rule - but don't worry, that's not a bad thing. That's how God made us.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (5:22 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
tfruge agrees with you on the issue, so he has an open mind, while people who disagree with you have closed minds... too funny.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (5:33 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
Agrees with me? The guy just wrote that he agrees with the Democrats with almost every issue except abortion- so I would say we have lots of disagreement in lots of matters.
How would I describe a "closed mind"? It is to already have your mind made up about a matter, and to have decided that no amount of reason or debate will every change it. It is to say I know the ultimate truth about this matter, and then additionally to say (with attitude and action) do not confuse me with the facts. I have not seen that with tfruge.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (6:55 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I'm sure not someone who claims to know ANY ultimate truths, about abortion or anything else, and I tend to find people who claim to know any as foolish. On the abortion question, I'm talking about LAW only. I don't claim to know when life begins, or whether a baby is "viable" at any given point. It's NOT the issue. The issue is simply do we want to live in a country where one group of people who claim the moral high ground on what for them is also a completely decided thing (admit it, you think abortion's wrong in just about every case) get to make that decision for others who may or may not agree.
I want to live in a land where you get to exercise your beliefs in YOUR life -and, by the way, I'd fight like hell to protect those right for you - but where those who disagree, for whatever reasons, get to exercise their beliefs as well, or even go against their own beliefs, which we know happens too, for reasons they come to accept are important enough to make that awful choice. I don't even claim to be right on the issue. I don't have to be right. I just want to help ensure that those who DO claim to know (a.) God's plan, (b.) when life begins (c.) that there is ALWAYS an alternative if only we'd see things their way, don't get to do two simple things. First, I don't want them to be able to make a woman a criminal for making a hard decision or a doctor a criminal; for helping the woman do whatever it is she decides to do, and secondly, I don't want them to be harrasing people involved in making those decisions. That's it.
But to you, that's closed-minded, isn't it?
