The Town Hall Archives Ahh, the nostalgia.     Search   Memberlist   Log in  The Right to Life      The Town Hall Forum Index -> Impolite Company Goto page Previous  1, 2 View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message The Top Crusader Job is to annoy Bennett Charles Joined: 23 Nov 2002 Posts: 2718 Location: Yarr. Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:54 am    Post subject: Aw, man, my picture of Godzilla and Ghidorah didn't show up... Elf of Rivendell One Star General Joined: 03 Jan 2003 Posts: 2027 Location: Rivendell, Middle-earth Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 1:01 am    Post subject: Yeah, most politicians are monstrous... is that what you're trying to say? PS. I like Godzilla better than Ghidorah... Ghidorah gives me the willies. Hisgirl84 Junior Member Joined: 16 May 2003 Posts: 199 Location: US Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 1:11 am    Post subject: Guess it's time to answer my own questions, eh? You guys pretty much said all of it, but might as well throw in my own spin on the subject. I'm adamantly pro-life. It tears me apart to hear of abortions being done with little guilt or shame...until after the fact. Then the mothers are so lost...I feel for them, because they bought the lie the pro-choicers fed them about it being their right. I'm the one in our family who takes the time to read articles on the issue and try to keep on top of what's going on in the political realm with this issue. A friend recently gave me a great book called "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions" by Randy Alcorn that is a great resource for those wanting to know how to answer the questions in logical ways. My brother and I attended a March For Life locally last March. There was a service and then we walked down to the local Planned Parenthood and prayed for the workers, the young people who go in and the unborned children. It was an awesome experience that I would recommend anyone doing (and it costs very little!). A few of my friends and I would like to go down during business hours and pass out tracts and such. Jared Walczak wrote: And finally, what about those under the age of eighteen? Not being of age to consent, they could not be considered able to give up their right to privacy by reason of age. They also wouldn't have the freedom to get the abortion in the first place, without parental consent. That would certainly cut down on a lot of abortion clinics' profits. hawkeye Linux Geek Joined: 23 Nov 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Inventors Corner Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 2:57 pm    Post subject: Jared Walczak wrote: Hawkeye, While we obviously both agree on the issue, I think we disagree somewhat on proper presentation of it. Perhaps because I've read so many (as in, WAY too many) opinion articles on every side of just about every conceivable issue, I tend to know in advance how an argument can be picked apart, what loopholes might be found in it. Not because I have some great understanding of how this stuff works -- just because I've probably read two dozen op-eds by liberals picking apart the argument in question. While your pro-life argument is a good one, it is not a legal one. In other words, it appeals to the moral aspects of abortion but its attempt to discuss its legality is, for all practical purposes, useless. First, let's start with the basics: you say that you believe that a woman who conceives chose that by her actions. I wholeheartedly agree and acknowledge that this diffuses arguments on the grounds of "but she didn't know what she was getting into" or the "it's not her fault" rhetoric. What it doesn't address, however, is anything relating to the law governing and regulating abortion. You attempt to make a connection ("she has given up her right to privacy"), but it doesn't stand up legally. Main reason? Because there is no right to privacy either written or implicit in the constitution -- nor in federal law. The "right to privacy" was implied by the Supreme Court in a ruling in the 1930s and while having precedent on its side, has no true legal merit. But let's continue on with your argument, assuming that since the courts have accepted the false "right to privacy" in the past, they'll rule that this closes that interpretation. Now, being optimistic, perhaps abortion is made illegal because the woman gave up her right to privacy. Take that to the logical conclusion. First, all rape victims will be exempt, because they did not choose to do so. Second, be ready to start seeing insanity and temporary insanity pleas. It happens in murder cases all the time, but I would not be surprised to see it pop up here: "But your honor, I didn't know what I was doing! Something snapped..." Temporary insanity means incapable of waiving a right. Abortion available. Then more questions arise: if a woman is on drugs or is drunk when, for sake of keeping this at a proper level, conception happens, did she possess the ability to waive a right? There must be a demonstrable ability to waive any right (or right so-called, in this case) for it to be legally valid. And another question: how could the court ever prove that a person WAS sober at the time of conception? When the woman decides she wants an abortion seven months later and tells the judge that she was drunk at the time, who exactly is going to be able to prove that not to be the case? Now, if my understanding of the law is correct, the burden of proof in this matter would not rest completely on the prosecution, as the facts of the situation are in evidence and what has yet to be established is up to the defense to prove, but I can already imagine pro-choice justices finding in favor of the woman even if the evidence is not in. In a case like this, it really is up to him and the ruling is subjective, so its not something that is likely to hurt his career. And finally, what about those under the age of eighteen? Not being of age to consent, they could not be considered able to give up their right to privacy by reason of age. Briefly on the other issue of what murdered babies could have done if allowed to live: I don't know what they could have done and it really doesn't matter. The pro-choice side could argue back that who knows what these women might accomplish if not "encumbered" by an unwanted child. The point is that speculating on what might be doesn't matter and doesn't change the simple facts: since Roe v Wade, somewhere around 43 million babies have been murdered. So, while we agree completely on the issue, I must respectfully disagree with your argument against it. It's not that its not morally valid, but it doesn't cover the entire scope of the issue and simply is not legally valid. I just want to see the pro-life side with the best arguments possible working for them. Jared: That is just the problem. This isnt a legal issue. It is a moral one. Most people side step the moral aspect by trying to make a legal issue out of it, thus easing their conscience. But as for the temporary insanity/drunkeness issue, if a person commits a crime, say, capital murder, while in such a state, they still dont get off scott free. Eugene Kendall™ The Official Town Hall Nutcase Joined: 24 Apr 2003 Posts: 3713 Location: Grandma Land! Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 3:03 pm    Post subject: Elf of Rivendell wrote: Yeah, most politicians are monstrous... is that what you're trying to say? PS. I like Godzilla better than Ghidorah... Ghidorah gives me the willies. Jared Cute and Cuddly Joined: 23 Nov 2002 Posts: 4672 Location: Pennsylvania Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 3:10 pm    Post subject: But your argument centered around "giving up the right to privacy," an issue of legality. And the argument just doesn't work in that way. As Christians, we have to fight this battle on both moral and legal grounds. About 63 percent of Americans are opposed to abortion PERSONALLY... It's actually a huge improvement over a few years ago. But two things need done here: first, even more people need to be convinced of this. Secondly, they have to be convinced that this is an issue important enough to warrant doing something about it. It isn't a personal conviction (as in whether or not to eat pork is to some people). This isn't something you just decide that YOU won't do it... It needs to end. Unfortunately, most of those who oppose abortion don't oppose it entirely; they just won't participate in it themselves. But ultimately, there are always going to be people who see no wrong in evil things. That's why there are laws. The abortion issue needs to be addressed in respect to the legal aspects. We can do some good providing alternatives, getting out the message and so on. But as long as it is legal to get an abortion, millions of women will do so. Hawkeye wrote: But as for the temporary insanity/drunkeness issue, if a person commits a crime, say, capital murder, while in such a state, they still dont get off scott free. Sometimes they do for temporary insanity. But this is a wholly different situation, as the pregnancy itself is obviously not a crime... So if intoxicated or "temporarily insane," etc., one can't give up a right or a presumed right. So I do think that there are ample loopholes in the argument that the woman gives up her right to privacy. The abortion industry would have just as many clients... Coralfish Town Hall Judge Joined: 17 Dec 2002 Posts: 1790 Location: Southern Academia Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 10:09 pm    Post subject: I have been away for a while, and just returned ot see this topic, so, as it is an important issue, I will say one or two things. As far as the Pro-Life movement has been concerned, our family has been involved for as long as I can remember. Although I was quite young at the time and cannot really remember the exact details, I believe we volunteeered our time at a local Pro-Life organization(I believe it is now known as Pro Life Across America). Anyhow, we would usually spend a few hours there folding brochures, stuffing envelopes, sealing them and all those other things that are associated with mass mailings. It was fun for me(although, at the time, I really had no knowlege of what we were doing or why), but my point is, that we are a distinctly pro-life family. Even though, since grade school I have never again volunteered or taken part in a Pro-life rally or the like, I do adamantly support the cause through doantions to a particular political party that I believe will take steps that need to be taken to put an end to abortion. Actually, just a few days ago, our state just enacted a manditory 24 hour waiting period before a person is allowed to go through with an abortion. This is just another small step but it is a step nonetheless, and one in the right direction. Hopefully more such changes will follow.. I have said enough for now, but this is an extremely important topic, as it is a major factor that we all should be aware of, especially when we approach the ballot box. Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First     The Town Hall Forum Index -> Impolite Company All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous  1, 2 Page 2 of 2 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group