Siggie...life begins at conception...so I would not agree with your first trimester abortion proposal.
Here is the larger issue...abortion is an abuse of freedom, it symbolizes the selfish and self interested demand for no constraints, when in fact freedom requires virtue acted out in self restraint.
America will implode on the liberal exercise of unlimited choice without virtuous restraint...not to mentioning murders babies because they present a demand on our freedom to self-indulge.
This is a tough decision but consider the following - many children have died when being born. Thus if you charge a man with murder or killing a baby as in this case BEFORE the child was born, how could you possibly tell if the child would survive the birth process? and I also wonder if these PRO LIFERS would support a child AFTER it was born if they force a woman to deliver her pregnancy?
Herein lies the problem with the debate. No one will define their terms.
Cheryl: Please give us your operational definition of "pro-choice".
TT: You have expressed a fairly realistic view, re: abortion, here as well as in the past, especially considering your religious convictions. However, in order for us to understand your position, you would need to define where "new life" begins.
Cheryl...isn't that the responsibility of the two people who decided to have the sex that produced the baby...all the things you listed for pro-lifers to do?
You can't do something like have sex with its full potential to bring about life, and then change your mind and kill the life you created.
And the creation of such life is not society's responsibility, it is the responsibility of those who decided they wanted adult fun their way...ignoring the husband and wife union that is designed to be responsible for bringing up the children they create and not kill them because they may be inconvenient.
I would be happy for the pro-lifers to take an interest in the children AFTER they are born. Keep them safe from abuse, a life on welfare, etc. Until then I'll stick with pro-choice. I say this as a mom and a grandma.
Yes, it could have been much worse. Yes, it is tragic that life was lost as well as property. Manitou has always had a resourcefulness and resilience as a community. But in the past few days I've heard blame for this event being thrown around from climate change to the forest service. What I have not heard, yet again, is ownership of things that could have been done to lessen the severity of the event. Manitou has had its share of flooding, all one needed to do was look inside the old bottling plant as it sat wallowing for years before it was saved, to see water lines, let alone know the previous history of flooding even before they moved the river. The fire was the icing on the cake for the canyons, highway and the river. The forest service warned of just this type of incident after the fire and yet very few took mitigation measures here or in Mountain Shadows in the aftermath, just as before, it will never happen to me .... As sad as it is, only when tragedy strikes does anyone act. The band aides put on the slopes of 24 are no longer a safety measure and the cement used to contain the river through the area won't hold the water back. Maybe now real measures to prevent this from happening with such force will take place.
Crank...most people would agree with some sort of reasonable set of solutions like you just outlined.
The problem is that liberals take no decision but their own as final...and they hammer away and sue and march in the streets until they get their way.
So, although a reasonable person would say exactly what you are saying about let our elected officials settle this and be done..it won't be done, because Guru and the rest will keep it up our noses until they can do abortions at 50 weeks, when they change their minds about having wanted a baby in the first place.
Siggie essentially spoke for me with those comments.
I prefer a middle ground approach.
For 2nd / 3rd trimester procedures I favor a 3-doctor panel make the call, or, like the recent law in Texas let's cap it at 20 weeks (4.5 months), beyond that the 3-doctor panel makes the call. Extremists on either end of the spectrum will say no; so it's up to serious legislators to do what we elect them to do - make the tough calls, get the job done and then move on.
There are other aspects of the recent Texas law that I do not like, the intent of which is simply to just make it all but impossible to get the procedure at any time.
It's time we put the abortion wars to rest and move on.
We need to reduce the need for abortion by teaching sex ed to young people and how to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I prefer an approach that also outlines the economic costs of raising children; it ain't all sunshine and roses out there.
It is not a battle between religious/philosophical types and women...the fight is between new life, innocent human beings struggling to live and selfish women who want sex without consequence.
Demanding the right to kill a baby is about inhuman and selfish and disgusting as Sandra Fluke appeared during her moment of fame.
A murderer is a murderer and will face the Lord on judgment day...God forgive these women and welcome their unborn into your kingdom's mercy!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for some people they will only be satisfied when they can control the opinions of all who disagree with them by enacting laws which force their opinions on everyone. Then it is no longer about freedom of speech but becomes an infringement on individual freedom. This debate belongs in the philosophical/religious realm and not in the political arena. This is a personal belief and no one has the right to force their beliefs on another. It is not for government to mandate one way or another.
Yes, TT, even though I believe you’re a homophobic bigot and a cowardice bully because of the way you belligerently attack anyone, especially gays, who disagrees with you on the comment’s board- I THINK YOU ARE A ROYAL PUZZZY! LOL
But you’re not a woman and you never had a period or can bear a child like I can, and being a lesbian doesn’t change this fact (as you tried to formally state in the past- Why does she care about abortion rights when she is a lesbian? Remember? Or are you now also going senile and want to deny this statement also?)
I am a woman and I will stand up for the rights of any other woman when OUR health care issues are being decided by male politicians to the detriment of a women’s health.
The article clearly states that there are laws that already protect the unborn child if it is harmed by another. I believe there shouldn’t be a Personhood Rights law that can overrule the rights of the Mother, especially during the first trimester!
And not only do I believe this, but many other Christians and Jewish people do also, as I have previously stated. And according to the Old Testament, it is NOT murder as you so claim, to kill cells that are multiplying by taking the morning after pill after fertilization. It’s a zygote and not a child until it takes its first breath! (Read the article from the Rabbi on abortion that I previously posted the last time we discussed this matter.)
I believe a woman has a choice over what happens to her own body, but they do not have a choice over the body of an unborn child.
The lady Guru will have something to say about this...but control over one's own life does not extend to the life of even a baby yet unborn.
...and taking of an innocent life is still murder.
We need to STOP allowing only the radicals on both sides having the only say in the debate. Here is my proposal (once again).
1st trimester - unlimited abortions
2nd trimester - an equal number of rational liberal and conservative women get together and decide the rules.
3rd trimester - no abortion (except in the case of imminent death of the mother.
"Personhood" can be decided based on the above.
What is YOUR definition of "choice"?
Miz clearly not clara: doesn't Old Crank have to "put up or shut up" or just those that speak against the greedy thugs and crybabies at the union? If you try real hard and maybe get someone to help, you might be able to say HYPOCRITE!
Old Crank: my experience as a steelworker's daughter in the Fifties was that far from offering inflated contracts to the men, the companies would use their right to mandate overtime as a way to stockpile supplies, then force a strike in an attempt to break the union. If the union held, the company would panic and that's where the big contracts came from -- anything to get the mills up and running again.
I do agree that an unwillingness to upgrade and innovate led to competitive disadvantage. We also have to remember, though, that the country was in a different mood in the Fifties. Men felt they had won a war that saved humanity. Thus, God was on their side and they could make no mistakes. There also was a tremendous split between management and the workers, who tended to be sons of immigrants and unsure of their place in American society.
The Problems are just getting started. City Ignored infrastructure and Slash headcount for years. Keep them taxes lower than Mississippi.
"attack that elephant with one bite at a time" by building unwanted and unneeded sports stadiums, etc. Yeah, that makes sense.
Okay clearly not clara: my real name is McKinley Morganfield and I'm a hoochie coochie man.
I see by your response that you are not only a liberal loon but, no doubt, a communist. Additionally, it seems you have extended your beliefs to totalitarianism. Everyone must agree with you or they are ordered to "shut up".
I missed you at the OK corral. Like most liberals, you are obviously nothing but a big mouth.
Like I said, Siggie, put up or shut up.
TT: since I am not a religious guy, I'm going to pretend I'm you in saying this.
Liberals - God love 'em, because no one else can stand 'em.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation