What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Abortion thread: (1 Viewer)

Stealthycat said:
I get that - but really morally and ethically wrong things ..... I cannot think of any that I agree with being legal and at my soul believe they're wrong

If I believe they're wrong, I have a hard time justifying them being legal
Click to expand...
Re:bolded....It’s not about what you believe, people believe different things. Not everybody believes what you believe no matter how strongly you feel that way. And your personal beliefs shouldn’t define somebody else’s. And for the record you use this argument for gun rights so I know you understand the concept. The irony is not lost on anyone paying attention

 
Stealthycat said:
I'm interested in how a person can see something as wrong and morally and ethically unacceptable .... and be ok with it being legal

That's what I was asking, and I still don't understand it. 
Click to expand...
You can believe something is often morally wrong without believing it is always morally wrong. And those decisions are deeply difficult and complex and should be made carefully but people get to make them.  

 
dkp993 said:
Re:bolded....It’s not about what you believe, people believe different things. Not everybody believes what you believe no matter how strongly you feel that way. And your personal beliefs shouldn’t define somebody else’s. And for the record you use this argument for gun rights so I know you understand the concept. The irony is not lost on anyone paying attention
Click to expand...
everyone knows the above however at the same time we live in a society with ever changing rules and ethics/morals dictate often what those rules are

example - marriage equality which isn't equality at all, its simply allowing same sex marriages which have been frowned upon and therefore not allowed for hundreds of years. Society has changed its morals on that and laws were changed to reflect. However polygamy is still banned, age discrimination still exits, etc etc and everyone is fine with those things right ?

anyway my point was there is a decrease in something and everyone is happy that its decreasing and they'd be happy if it was almost non-existent .......... if that's true then why be in favor of whatever the it is being legal ?

abortion isn't in the Constitution - it was a SC ruling that can be overturned with another ruling

 
Henry Ford said:
You can believe something is often morally wrong without believing it is always morally wrong. And those decisions are deeply difficult and complex and should be made carefully but people get to make them.  
Click to expand...
and again I'm trying to think of something that I believe is morally wrong but not always and I can't think of one

maybe my morals and beliefs are deeper rooted than most?

 
Stealthycat said:
and again I'm trying to think of something that I believe is morally wrong but not always and I can't think of one

maybe my morals and beliefs are deeper rooted than most?
Click to expand...
I think if you think more about the issue, you'll find that there are thousands of things you think are morally wrong "except when...."

Is drunk driving morally wrong?  I think it usually is.

If you're a .08 and you see someone who's bleeding out and you are the only one who can get them to the hospital on time by driving them there, is it morally wrong to do that?

Is shooting another person to death morally wrong?  Is shooting someone to death in defense of your family?

The issue is for many, most moral issues are framed with respect to an action and purpose/circumstance/moral relevance framing - you'd say "well, murder is wrong, but not shooting someone in self defense.  That's not murder."  But you're not framing abortion in terms of action and purpose/circumstance/moral relevance framing - you're just framing it as the action.  Which makes it a difficult discussion to have.  

Is injecting drugs into someone else's body morally wrong? Why do we let doctors do it? Oh, not in those circumstances.  

An action or procedure isn't usually enough for a decision on morality.  

"I had an abortion."

"I shot that man and killed him."

"I drove drunk."

"I threw my kid out an open window on the second floor."

"I threw a bucket of water on my girlfriend's head while she wasn't looking."

None of those are morally abhorrent actions by themselves - because there may be circumstances that make it not just morally neutral, but even the best moral decision.

"The fetus had no chance at life and giving birth to it would have cost me my life."

"He was trying to murder my neighbor."

"It was the only way to get her to the hospital in time."

"The house was on fire."

"Her hair was on fire."

 
is there a law that you can drive drunk to save a friends life ?  not exactly apples to apples there is it ?

Henry Ford said:
But you're not framing abortion in terms of action and purpose/circumstance/moral relevance framing - you're just framing it as the action.
Click to expand...
I'm framing it as the end of a pregnancy where the unborn dies ............. that's the purpose of the procedure. Sure, we can call circumstance into anything and self justify ANYTHING .... but that doesn't mean its right or moral or ethical is just means a person's mind is self justifying.

Henry Ford said:
"The fetus had no chance at life and giving birth to it would have cost me my life."
Click to expand...
interesting you'd use those words - it would be exceptionally rare for the above to be the case and if the fetus wasn't alive, there would be no pregnancy. You cannot be pregnant with a dead fetus. If you mean would it die immediately after birth? That's a guess that could be made I suppose sure, but then we go back to self justifying don't we? 

https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-abortions-are-medically-necessary/

Most people agree that the 95% or more of abortions performed because they're an inconvenience are disturbing and if they disappeared tomorrow most would be happy about that because we know what they are deep down. I'm just not afraid to call it what it is

 
Stealthycat said:
is there a law that you can drive drunk to save a friends life ?  not exactly apples to apples there is it ?

I'm framing it as the end of a pregnancy where the unborn dies ............. that's the purpose of the procedure. Sure, we can call circumstance into anything and self justify ANYTHING .... but that doesn't mean its right or moral or ethical is just means a person's mind is self justifying.

interesting you'd use those words - it would be exceptionally rare for the above to be the case and if the fetus wasn't alive, there would be no pregnancy. You cannot be pregnant with a dead fetus. If you mean would it die immediately after birth? That's a guess that could be made I suppose sure, but then we go back to self justifying don't we? 

https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-abortions-are-medically-necessary/

Most people agree that the 95% or more of abortions performed because they're an inconvenience are disturbing and if they disappeared tomorrow most would be happy about that because we know what they are deep down. I'm just not afraid to call it what it is
Click to expand...
I am not talking about 95% of abortions.  I am talking about circumstances in which it is unquestionably moral to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Where a fetus is developing without lungs or a functioning circulatory system, it will not survive more than seconds.  Where that also is a pregnancy that threatens the mother's life, it is unquestionably the case that it is the moral choice to terminate that pregnancy.  Will you concede that?  Yes, that is an exceptionally rare set of circumstances.  That is not my question.  My question is whether that would be the morally correct choice.

 
It is not illegal to throw a child out of a two story window.  It is illegal to commit child abuse.

It is not illegal to shoot someone.  It is illegal to commit assault or battery, or even murder depending on what circumstances we are talking about.

It is not illegal to inject drugs into your veins.  It is illegal to possess controlled substances other than with a prescription.

It should not be illegal to have or perform an abortion.  The rest of that thought is open to discussion and argument based on what circumstances some think should be relevant.

 
Henry Ford said:
I am not talking about 95% of abortions.  I am talking about circumstances in which it is unquestionably moral to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Where a fetus is developing without lungs or a functioning circulatory system, it will not survive more than seconds.  Where that also is a pregnancy that threatens the mother's life, it is unquestionably the case that it is the moral choice to terminate that pregnancy.  Will you concede that?  Yes, that is an exceptionally rare set of circumstances.  That is not my question.  My question is whether that would be the morally correct choice.
Click to expand...
you are self justifying

if there is a pregnancy, there is an unborn living human being, it can't be any other way .......... its is exceptionally rare that a pregnancy would be a choice of mother or infant, exceptionally rare. 

I was on a river bank one day, my brother in law and I. There was an old concrete bridge that had broken in the middle and the water was high and swift and where it poured off the downstream side the water churned and whirlpooled violently. 3 kids were playing on the bank and 2 of them got sucked into the current. Daniel and I jumped into the river after them.

What moral choice was there Henry Ford? 

 
Stealthycat said:
 those are unborn babies being killed and everyone knows it

I'm trying to think of things that are unethical/immoral that I'm ok with being legal but would love to see stopped .......... I'm having a hard time thinking of anything. I'd like to see abortion end, smoking stopped, single use plastics ended, porn gone forever, prostitution ended forever etc etc
Click to expand...
Not that you will ever stop, but statements like the bolded are not really conducive to a real back and forth exchange of ideas and opinions.  The 

The second bolded makes me think we will never agree on a single thing.  ;)

 
KarmaPolice said:
Not that you will ever stop, but statements like the bolded are not really conducive to a real back and forth exchange of ideas and opinions.  The 

The second bolded makes me think we will never agree on a single thing.  ;)
Click to expand...
I didn't bring those things up someone else did and if I could do it yes, I'd ban porn and prostitution forever on my ground of morality and ethics absolutely 

Everyone has things they're implement if they could based on many things - true ?

 
So who was the Republican that figured it out that they could screw over everyone, but the rich, as long as they came out against abortion?  Evangelicals hooked themselves to that sole platform and i can't see it ending well for anyone.

As a Christian, I am really bothered by this.

 
I typed this up for a debate with some family members during Thanksgiving. I decided to table the discussion, but I'm going go ahead and post it.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for we are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Translated into today's terms, and you can substitute Republican, Democrat, black, white, rich, poor, American, Russian, capitalist, socialist, etc. We are all one in Christ.

The Constitution begins with, "we the people".  We...meaning everyone.  As a Christian I believe in the golden rule, "due unto others as you would have them due unto you".  I don't believe in, or at least refuse to live by, the politicians golden rule, "those with the gold make the rules".  

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.  That includes everyone regardless of political party, race, color, etc.  

In addition, not let us forget 1 john 3:16-18 which says, "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth."

There are aspects of both political parties that conflict with christian ideals.  With Democrats the obvious one is abortion.  With Republicans it is capatilism which, while having many positives, encourages greed and placing oneself ahead of others.

There are also aspects of each party that mimic Christian ideals.  For Democrats its the socialist programs.  My family probably would have died if not for Roosevelt's New Deal helping farmers feed their families.  It was also Roosevelt who helped my grandparents with the GI Bill after WWII.  It was democrats who built and sustained social security which was the life bread for my wife's Grandpa when he retired after serving Christ preaching his word.  It was democrats who pushed forward equal opportunities for all of the women in my life.  It's democrats who push to fund government research projects to find cures to diseases, improvements to infrastructure, education for all, and basic medicare for all.  It's Democrats who funded food and Medicare programs that my sister and her husband so desperately needed before he found a better job.

To assign evil to any political party is to ignore the Christian ideals they support and most importantly to ignore God's word. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rascal said:
I typed this up for a debate with some family members during Thanksgiving. I decided to table the discussion, but I'm going go ahead and post it.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for we are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Translated into today's terms, and you can substitute Republican, Democrat, black, white, rich, poor, American, Russian, capitalist, socialist, etc. We are all one in Christ.

The Constitution begins with, "we the people".  We...meaning everyone.  As a Christian I believe in the golden rule, "due unto others as you would have them due unto you".  I don't believe in, or at least refuse to live by, the politicians golden rule, "those with the gold make the rules".  

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.  That includes everyone regardless of political party, race, color, etc.  

In addition, not let us forget 1 john 3:16-18 which says, "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth."

There are aspects of both political parties that conflict with christian ideals.  With Democrats the obvious one is abortion.  With Republicans it is capatilism which, while having many positives, encourages greed and placing oneself ahead of others.

There are also aspects of each party that mimic Christian ideals.  For Democrats its the socialist programs.  My family probably would have died if not for Roosevelt's New Deal helping farmers feed their families.  It was also Roosevelt who helped my grandparents with the GI Bill after WWII.  It was democrats who built and sustained social security which was the life bread for my wife's Grandpa when he retired after serving Christ preaching his word.  It was democrats who pushed forward equal opportunities for all of the women in my life.  It's democrats who push to fund government research projects to find cures to diseases, improvements to infrastructure, education for all, and basic medicare for all.  It's Democrats who funded food and Medicare programs that my sister and her husband so desperately needed before he found a better job.

To assign evil to any political party is to ignore the Christian ideals they support and most importantly to ignore God's word. 
Click to expand...
This is really a good post and I hate to refute any part of it, but I think the belief that being anti prohibition of abortion conflicts with God's law is flawed using the very scripture in that write up.

Isn't prohibition just trying to " love with words or speech" once I believe that prohibition of abortion is ineffective at reducing abortion rates?   Whether I believe this because I have read the repeated Lancet studies (or the headlines about them roughly every five years for more than a decade) or simply because in my gut abortion is more like drugs or alcohol or gambling where "demand" is some sort of force within too many people that thankfully doesn't exist for murder or armed robbery or crimes where prohibition is effective?  Isn't supporting things, even as a happy coincidence that actually reduces abortion such as those "socialist programs" or contraception or real sex education or even the simple reality that teens will have sex "love ...with actions and in truth"?

I don't wish a back and forth argument and I otherwise really do think you have a great post.  I just wanted to give my perspective at to why I believe my position on abortion fits easily into the beliefs expressed about being a Christian. 

Finally, in support of what I believe is your large point it is probably lost on many that 2000 years ago the Samaritans were the irredeemable deplorables to the audience of the story of the Good Samaritan.  

ETA- Just as an FYI I am unsure that we disagree at all.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
you are self justifying

if there is a pregnancy, there is an unborn living human being, it can't be any other way .......... its is exceptionally rare that a pregnancy would be a choice of mother or infant, exceptionally rare. 

I was on a river bank one day, my brother in law and I. There was an old concrete bridge that had broken in the middle and the water was high and swift and where it poured off the downstream side the water churned and whirlpooled violently. 3 kids were playing on the bank and 2 of them got sucked into the current. Daniel and I jumped into the river after them.

What moral choice was there Henry Ford? 
Click to expand...
I will gladly answer your question when you have answered mine.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Is drunk driving morally wrong?  I think it usually is.

Is shooting another person to death morally wrong?  Is shooting someone to death in defense of your family?

Is injecting drugs into someone else's body morally wrong? Why do we let doctors do it? Oh, not in those circumstances.  
Click to expand...
its not morally wrong to drive drunk. Its morally wrong to kill innocent life which is what can happen with DUI

its not morally wrong to shoot another person. Its morally wrong to kill innocent life 

It is not morally wrong to inject drugs into someone's body when they ask for it -. Its morally wrong to kill innocent life by injecting drugs into their bodied against their will

 
Did you know after 5 months the fetus feels pain? 

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

You can ask any scientist: Nothing that isn't alive can feel pain. Therefore, the fetus (after 5 months) is living. Therefore, abortion in this case is murder. Therefore, shouldn't post-5-month abortion be illegal under our current system of laws?

 
Yes Texas = I support and appreciate you today. Every states needs this - it would save 500-600,000 or more human lives every year. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/01/politics/texas-abortion-supreme-court-sb8-roe-wade/index.html

(CNN)A controversial Texas law that bars abortions at six weeks went into effect early Wednesday morning after the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court failed to rule on pending emergency requests brought by abortion providers.

The lack of judicial intervention means that the law -- which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant -- goes into force absent further court intervention.

The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.

Under the Texas law, abortion is prohibited when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. There is no exception for rape or incest, although there is an exemption for "medical emergencies."

 
Rich Conway said:
If the Texas law stays in place, it is effectively a complete ban on abortions.  I can't see the current SCOTUS overturning this law.  Democrats need to make this the #1 issue in 2022 and drive turnout.
Click to expand...
What an awful law...if more states did this..abortions will still happen, and become more dangerous.  It will not save lives as some want to claim if any statistic on this is to be believed.  Places that ban abortion see abortions go?  Yup...Up.  Ive posted links on that many times over.  Here is a newer one with similar conclusions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/abortion-rates-don-t-drop-when-procedure-outlawed-it-does-ncna1235174

This one actually showing that the numbers are the same not increased...perhaps newer research.  But gets into the procedure still happening and becoming more dangerous.

 
sho nuff said:
What an awful law...if more states did this..abortions will still happen, and become more dangerous.  It will not save lives as some want to claim if any statistic on this is to be believed.  Places that ban abortion see abortions go?  Yup...Up.  Ive posted links on that many times over.  Here is a newer one with similar conclusions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/abortion-rates-don-t-drop-when-procedure-outlawed-it-does-ncna1235174

This one actually showing that the numbers are the same not increased...perhaps newer research.  But gets into the procedure still happening and becoming more dangerous.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  When abortions are banned, yep the number goes up. Here is a link. Actually the link doesnt say that. Are you for real?  

 
sho nuff said:
Why is it a good law?  Why should abortion be banned?  What do you think it will accomplish?
Click to expand...


I think it's a good law because I think abortion is murder. I'm Pro life.

I think (hope) one of the things it will accomplish is increased attentiveness to contraceptives (and a decease in unwanted pregnancies) by those who don't want children.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I think it's a good law because I think abortion is murder. I'm Pro life.

I think (hope) one of the things it will accomplish is increased attentiveness to contraceptives (and a decease in unwanted pregnancies) by those who don't want children.
Click to expand...


I think education works better at that than banning abortions. I think there were links on that early in the thread about education being key there.  Id have to look back.

The numbers continue to support that.  Banning them does not decrease them.  And makes them less dangerous.

 
sho nuff said:
I think education works better at that than banning abortions. I think there were links on that early in the thread about education being key there.  Id have to look back.
Click to expand...


Thank but I believe you - no link needed. I also support education for the very same reason: reducing unwanted pregnancies.

 
SoBeDad said:
Are there exceptions for rape or fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities?
Click to expand...
From the article linked above:

Under the Texas law, abortion is prohibited when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. There is no exception for rape or incest, although there is an exemption for "medical emergencies."

 
Rich Conway said:
If the Texas law stays in place, it is effectively a complete ban on abortions.  I can't see the current SCOTUS overturning this law.  Democrats need to make this the #1 issue in 2022 and drive turnout.
Click to expand...


Just so I understand your position.  You think the SC would allow a law that bans abortion after 6 weeks to stand?  The only way I could see that happen is if the medical community came to a consensus as to when life begins OR medical technology has made advancements that a birth at 6 weeks could be viable.  

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Thankfully I live in a state where my daughter gets to decide for herself, instead a bunch of moral holier than thous who could care less what happens to the baby after birth. Men in particular disgust me on this issue. Where I grew up, you minded your own business. To be clear, men should GTFO when it comes to this.
Click to expand...
No thanks.  If the supreme court overturns Roe, either directly or just by letting it die on the vine, I'll consider it the one good thing to come from the Trump administration.

 
sho nuff said:
Why should abortion be banned?
Click to expand...


killing unborn babies should be banned

and please don't respond with "they're are not alive" ... we know they are, or "they are not babies" because yes, they are

an abortion procedure literally is killing the unborn to stop the pregnancy from continuing - can't kill something that's not alive, can't be a human pregnancy if it aint human so .... yes, abortion is literally killing unborn

its been accepted a long time - and its time we changed that and progressed into a society that values human life

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Thankfully I live in a state where my daughter gets to decide for herself, instead a bunch of moral holier than thous who could care less what happens to the baby after birth. Men in particular disgust me on this issue. Where I grew up, you minded your own business. To be clear, men should GTFO when it comes to this.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that as long as when women decide to have the baby GTFO when it comes to child support.  Men should have to option to legally abort their financial and parental obligations.

 
Snotbubbles said:
Just so I understand your position.  You think the SC would allow a law that bans abortion after 6 weeks to stand?  The only way I could see that happen is if the medical community came to a consensus as to when life begins OR medical technology has made advancements that a birth at 6 weeks could be viable.  
Click to expand...


viability doesn't define life

we might can all argue when life begins - nobody can argue once a uteran pregnancy begins, there isn't a living human unborn there

trust science - believe in biology

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Thankfully I live in a state where my daughter gets to decide for herself, instead a bunch of moral holier than thous who could care less what happens to the baby after birth. Men in particular disgust me on this issue. Where I grew up, you minded your own business. To be clear, men should GTFO when it comes to this.
Click to expand...


my daughter had an abortion - I had no say so in it

its been over a year and the mental trauma of doing it still haunts her, she wished she could undo it

abortions are way too often horrible on women for the rest of their lives 

 
Stealthycat said:
my daughter had an abortion - I had no say so in it

its been over a year and the mental trauma of doing it still haunts her, she wished she could undo it

abortions are way too often horrible on women for the rest of their lives 
Click to expand...
Did she have counseling before or after the abortion?

 
SoBeDad said:
Did she have counseling before or after the abortion?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure - I tried respecting her personal choice and it was after that I found out 

I lost a grandchild, would have been my first. 

so what Grace Under Pressure says "GTFO" .... no, many many people are impacted with abortions', not just the would have been mother and father

 
Snotbubbles said:
Just so I understand your position.  You think the SC would allow a law that bans abortion after 6 weeks to stand?  The only way I could see that happen is if the medical community came to a consensus as to when life begins OR medical technology has made advancements that a birth at 6 weeks could be viable.  
Click to expand...
Yes, I think SCOTUS, given the current makeup, will allow this law to stand.

Edit: The above is a prediction re: what will happen, not a commentary in any way on what "should" happen.  Think of it like a "I predict Jerry Jones will give the head coach an extension" statement as opposed to a "Jerry Jones should give the head coach an extension" statement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Rich Conway said:
Yes, I think SCOTUS, given the current makeup, will allow this law to stand.
Click to expand...


me too

times are changing, we're seeing a progression where people understand the value of life and die hard, kill unborn babies up until the moment of birth mentality like Hillary Clinton had is antiquated, out of date and frankly its disgusting 

in the coming years the changes will happen, and eventually Roe will be overturned I think and that progression for our society is absolutely fantastic IMO

 
Stealthycat said:
I'm not sure - I tried respecting her personal choice and it was after that I found out 

I lost a grandchild, would have been my first. 

so what Grace Under Pressure says "GTFO" .... no, many many people are impacted with abortions', not just the would have been mother and father
Click to expand...
Thank you for some personal reflections. I have 2 daughters, 29  & 30, and I don't think they would want me to be part of their choice, one of them might never let me know. My 2 daughters were not planned, there was some discussion of abortion, but now they're 2 beautiful grownup adults.  But not every unplanned pregnancy ends up this way, especially for younger parents in poverty. Some states require counseling before abortion, I wonder if it has an affect on decisions.

Psychological distress is not uncommon after an abortion, but usually it is reduced over time. I experienced it through one of my female friends who opened up to me.  On the other hand, psychological distress occurs with unwanted pregnancies coming to term, and this new law will have unintended consequences, just like prohibition created more problems.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
465
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
235
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top