Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 02-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs down Oklahoma Personhood Bill

Quote:
The Oklahoma Senate has overwhelmingly approved an anti-abortion "personhood" bill that declares life begins at conception. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...kla/?tag=stack
Quote:
The bill provides embryos and fetuses with "all the rights privileges, and immunities" of other citizens.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...kla/?tag=stack
What are your thoughts? Should unborn children have all the same rights as children who are already born? Why? Why not?

Please keep this discussion respectful.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:22 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
This is one that quite frequently sparks disagreement among my FB friends. Some of them are quite outspoken against my opinions.

I don't know that anything one might say is likely to change someone else's mind. These are things we tend to hold pretty deeply.

The short answer is, yes, I think unborn children should have rights. Many would argue that at the point a child is conceived it is just a mass of cells. It's true that they have not much structure at that point, but they ARE human in the sense that they will never develop into a puppy, a fish, or an azalea bush. They are destined to become a human being, and nothing else. And if you want to base personhood on structures, at what point would you call them persons? When the heart starts beating, or when the lungs take their first breath? When they have fingers and toes? When brain activity starts? Those all happen at wildly varying times. How can you arbitrarily decide that one or the other gives a person the right to live, and not the other tests?

And if you make the moment of birth the point at which a person has a right to live, what about 5 hours before birth? How can you separate that point from 8 months before birth? Where do you draw the line, and more importantly, what is it about YOUR line that makes it "ok" to deny life to someone who hasn't crossed it? Typically abortion times have been set based on how safe a particular method of abortion is for the mother, not on any real test of when the baby becomes a person, because there IS no test.

If you deny parents the right to kill their newborn children, then I believe you should just as rightfully protect the lives of their children who are not yet born.

As far as the arguments for abortion, I understand that many young girls or women who are not financially able to care for children find themselves pregnant. But I don't believe killing someone to pay for their mistakes is the right answer. That is the best example of the adage "two wrongs don't make a right" that I know of. And saying it's a "choice" in circumstances like that is just wrong, in my opinion. If someone in my life inconveniences me, or even bankrupts me, or even sets their will to emotionally destroy me, that does not give me the legal right to kill them. It's not a "choice" I can legally or morally make. I see no difference here.

Now, some situations are of course more troublesome to decide. Cases of rape or incest are often cited. There again, honestly, it is not the fault of the child. I have full compassion for the mother, and I would never say she should be forced to raise the child, but I would hope that providing full emotional support and the option of having the child adopted is the best course. Remember that if the mother chooses to abort the baby in order to spare herself emotional distress, she may suffer further emotional distress for having killed her own child, and that can never be undone. The act of rape or incest has already occurred, and can't be undone. Aborting the baby won't make it not have happened. Why add potentially more emotional distress on top of that?

Situations where the child is not expected to be healthy or have a good quality of life are another sticky situation. In this country, it is not legal to decide for another person that their life is not worth living and take it from them. I think unborn children are no different in this respect. It may be that some will have mental or physical problems in life, but the fact is that if you argue this from a legal standpoint and agree to it, then you set precedent, and that can be a dangerous place to begin all sorts of things. Not only that, but I know of at least one situation where doctors urged the mother to abort her baby because they predicted all sorts of dire health consequences, and it turns out they were wrong. I've heard of many others, but this situation is one I saw every aspect of up close, and I know the mother would be devastated if she had considered the possibility of killing that child.

The only one I really can't answer for someone else is a situation in which the pregnancy really causes potential life-threatening issues for the mother. I don't believe the government has a right to make that decision for anyone, and i don't believe I have the right to tell them what to do either. I have known women who found themselves pregnant and facing a diagnosis of cancer, who were advised to abort the baby and pursue treatment. I know those who decided to have the child and forgo treatment, and eventually died. But it is not for me to say whether they did the right thing or not. THAT is their body, their child, their choice, and I don't think it's possible to frame any kind of legislation to apply to situations like that. In the same way, if a woman had a pregnancy that wasn't expected to be viable (such as a tubal pregnancy) and her life was in danger due to the placement of the baby, I am not here to tell her what she can or cannot do. I think if you want to offer "choices" to women, those should be the only situations in which it is morally right to do so.

As I said, I'm sure some people will disagree with me, and vehemently. To be honest with you, when I was younger, I used to believe it WAS a woman's body, and her choice. Thankfully I have never had an abortion, because I can tell you that I would be regretting it with all my heart today if I had done so. I do have three very close friends who have had multiple abortions, and one of them was almost destroyed by it. I find the counseling she was offered to have been very irresponsible in not allowing her to really explore her options and what the final effects to her emotional health would be.

Children are one of the most important things in life, and one of the things dearest to many of our hearts. Almost nothing else can stir such strong emotions in us (both positive and negative). It doesn't surprise me that people's feelings on both sides of the issues are very strong. I just had to stop and think about it at some point, and ask myself what was really right.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-16-2012, 02:24 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
I passed on this thread this morning so I could think about it.

I am as anti-abortion as anyone you will meet. I keep wavering on anti-choice just a bit.

If this were the law of the land, meaning all of the US, I could embrace it and say about time!

For one state to do it just means the people with money go out of state and the poor are forced into having children they don't want and most likely won't properly care for. Many of those children will be abused. The unwanted/ abused child scenario is the one that keeps haunting me and makes me waver on the anti-choice part.

Is that abused child a mark on my soul if I forced the woman to have the child?
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-16-2012, 02:39 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post

Is that abused child a mark on my soul if I forced the woman to have the child?
If you're asking about a mark on your soul ... what about the mark of the child that was killed so it wouldn't be abused?

It's a very sad situation, I agree. But I still don't think it's an argument. You can't go around killing young children whose parents are abusive to them in order to save them from abuse.

I would that no one would ever take a child for granted, mistreat them, OR spoil them rotten ... but I don't get to decide for everyone else ...
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-16-2012, 08:39 PM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Breeze Wood Breeze Wood is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
... and what of the grand race to the Sea awaited by the Gals upon the newly hatched Terrapins.

What of the Cattle and Chickens ...

Nature is not so easily read as legislation is written.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-16-2012, 11:21 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Sorry, I for one do not equate animals with humans.

I treat my animals well, make sure they are happy and healthy. But they exist for a purpose. If that means killing them (and it does, if I'm going to eat them) then so be it.

I had a young goat get with a buck when she was only a few months old. I gave her lute so she didn't conceive, since it could have killed her. I once had a dog that I was going to spay anyway that got pregnant ... I had her spayed while pregnant instead of producing a litter of pups that wasn't planned. And I eat eggs -- potential chicken embryos.

Not the same thing, in my book. IMO, any suggestion that it is the same cheapens the discussion.
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-17-2012, 12:09 AM
Dreamrage's Avatar
Dreamrage Dreamrage is offline
Blue Rose Mentor
 
Join Date: 01-11-11
Location: South Africa
Posts: 5,024
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I am in two minds. Look, its not good to have kids before you're ready, that much I know. I still consider it life, regardless of what stage its in. I just think that, if you are going to have a child, and you know you won't be able to care for it, then adoption is the only way out after that, and not "getting rid of the problem".

Having a child live through years of abuse, just because you thought it a novel idea, or something you could handle, is not the way to go. At the same time, I would have not liked the idea, had my mother decided to terminate me. (Not that I would have been able to stop her had she tried), I just feel that the time I did spend with her, before I was adopted was worth it in a way, because I survived and was able to grow up and be an adult. (lame excuse, but don't really want to go any deeper than that.)

I think the rule is a good one, and should be all over the world. To stop children from being abused, I think that maybe there should be a better system in place that takes care of them, when its realized that their parentage might not have been the best option. The system down here doesn't really work that well either. It took them two years to find me.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-17-2012, 04:57 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspired Ink View Post
If you're asking about a mark on your soul ... what about the mark of the child that was killed so it wouldn't be abused?

..
Understand that I am not saying this is what I believe. I am questioning.

It is radically different. Forcing a woman to bear the child is an actual action on your part. Permitting choice is not the same as committing the deed.

If one were to accept that allowing choice is the same as doing the deed then God would be the greatest sinner in all of eternity for did he not grant mankind free will? Set aside our shared hatred of abortion for a moment and really think about the preceding sentence.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-17-2012, 01:36 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Understand that I am not saying this is what I believe. I am questioning.

It is radically different. Forcing a woman to bear the child is an actual action on your part. Permitting choice is not the same as committing the deed.

If one were to accept that allowing choice is the same as doing the deed then God would be the greatest sinner in all of eternity for did he not grant mankind free will? Set aside our shared hatred of abortion for a moment and really think about the preceding sentence.

It's a very well-asked question you pose.

Something about it doesn't set QUITE right with me. I'm not sure I can articulate it.

You said "forcing a woman to bear the child" ... I don't really see it in quite that way. In most instances, the woman chose herself by doing those things that lead naturally to children. I think the burden of action lies much more heavily on the woman (unless she is truly a victim) than it does on one who would say that to abort the child is murder and not permit it by law. But ... you do have a point. To disallow her ability to terminate the baby IS an action. Just that in my gut, I think it is less an action than becoming pregnant in the first place.

And you said that permitting the choice is not the same as committing the deed. That is also true. BUT ... if I go to the polls and exercise my voice in support of the deed ... that IS an action. Smaller than the action the woman commits when she has the abortion, but if I argue for it, vote for it, pay for it, or otherwise throw my support behind her actions, don't I participate at least to some degree in her guilt?

I'm not giving you hard arguments here ... just saying that's a very good question you pose, and after thinking about it for a bit, that's my best take on it. You make a good point, but I think it's not quite as cut and dried as it would seem from your words, at least not to me. It is something to think carefully upon.

Far be it from me to say that God is a sinner because He allows choice. But since you brought it in, I won't ignore it. My best answer for that is that God indeed has laws that say certain things are wrong, although He allows us to choose to break His laws. Any law passed in the land is the same. Just because a thing is illegal, doesn't make it impossible to do.

(There is another obvious can of worms under that tablecloth, but unless you want to discuss it, I won't go there, LOL).

Thanks for making me think on that one.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-17-2012, 02:13 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
A few final points in the same vein.

If you believe, then you must believe that the laws of God usurp the laws of man.

What right does man have to take away what God gave? Denying the right to choose is in fact taking away a God given right.

I don't know what if anything God said on the subject of abortion. I do not subscribe to any papal infallibility theories.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-17-2012, 02:59 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Oh, I wasn't even THINKING of the pope. There is no need to appeal to any such theories, as far as I am concerned.

Again, of course, I'm sure people might disagree with me, but it is actually because of what I believe God would say about the matter that guides my personal convictions.

One thing I really should say first is this ... I don't believe we can legislate morality. Laws are in place (supposedly) mostly for the protection of all. That is an admirable ideal, but ... you really can't pass a law and expect it to make someone a moral person. That just isn't the place of the government. That is really an over-riding factor to this whole discussion. Although if you are going to pass laws to protect a person's right to live (and I think that is just), then the question posed here is whether an unborn person has a right to that same protection, and I do think they do.

OK, with that out of the way ...

Yes, God gave a right to choose. He gave us a right to choose to murder, to steal. But those things ARE against God's law. If the state passes similar laws and reiterates that one should not murder, or steal, is the state taking away a person's God-given free will?

I don't think so. You are in no way PREVENTING that from happening ... what you are really doing (in most cases) is passing a law for the protection of others against being murdered, or having things stolen. Usually the real purpose of passing a law is to impose a penalty for the breaking of that law. Usually. Of course, the state wants citizens to follow the laws, but obviously not everyone is going to. The promise of punishment will hopefully sway some to choose not to murder and steal. I think that is the main purpose of laws.

And I don't believe the laws of man usurp the laws of God ... I don't suppose anyone who believes in God would think that. But it is my careful consideration that God gives children, that He gives the spirit that inhabits them, that He knows them before they are born, and that man is created in God's image (thus animals are not the same IMO). Those are all part of my beliefs. And it is because of these beliefs that I can't see abortion as anything other than choosing to murder a human being. If one does not believe these things, then that argument can't make any sense to them at all, I suppose.

But that's where I stand on it, and why.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Abortion in Oklahoma Cricket Controversial Social Issues 36 05-05-2010 06:12 AM
Affiliate Meet Up in Oklahoma!!!!!!!!!! mikepa Affiliate Marketing Forum 0 02-15-2010 08:40 AM
Cold Case Democracy and the Doctrine of "Corporate Personhood" Franc Tireur Controversial Social Issues 0 01-28-2010 01:36 PM
Hey, James from Oklahoma here. :-) James-Volsh New Member Introductions 10 11-17-2009 07:33 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC