Prosperous America

[maat55]

QUOTE=maat55;218671]Not some people, a majority of people. If the debate cannot be decided, why are we not ruling in favor of the fetus who has no say. Would it be inconvienent to abolish abortion? sure it would. But the right thing is not always the easy thing.

Which majority of people? Christians? Assuming 80% of our population are Christians, what percentage do you think are devout Christians? I'm not talking about the facade people put on at church and other religion related activities or how a person conducts themselves in front of others that will judge them based on the appearance of their devotion. When I say devout I'm talking about a person who holds themselves personally accountable to their religious doctrine without exception. A person who doesn't pick and choose which rules they will follow or make exceptions based on their own personal interpretation of rules and scripture. A person who makes a conscious decision to act in accordance with the rules that govern their religious beliefs, without exception no matter the personal consequences. Now anyone can claim to live like this, but the reality is few, if any, do. I suppose one could claim that a defiant act of self interest was a sin; however that is really just a convenient justification for picking and choosing which rules to follow. So the truly devout removed, we are now talking about 5% of the population at best (I’m inclined to put <1% of population, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt). This 5% will not carry a vote to law. Perhaps if we made how everyone votes public, or if you really wanted to lock in the vote, have them cast these votes when they attend church. That would probably get it closer to 80%, but that would be due to a subtle form of coercion.

[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between sins, over-eating, gossip, theft, lying are more commonly broken than murder. How many people purposely murder someone, religious or not? You can't compare day to day sins with that of taking human life.


There are a large number of people(Religious or otherwise) who are adamantly pro-life, period. There are a large number of those who are pro-choice but do not agree with abortion, then there are those who are pro-abortion.


Abortion Statistics by U.S. State, Race, Age and Worldwide Statistics

[cptacek]

Many believe there is no difference between an abortion and taking your new born baby and dumping it in a dumpster. Why should it be excused if we do not excuse the other?

And other people don't believe that.

Some people on the pro-choice side agree with you that there is no difference between an abortion and taking the new born baby and dumping it in a dumpster, and that both are ok. From what I have researched, there is a spectrum of belief as to what constitutes a blob of tissue vs. what is a human being. It goes anywhere from the moment of conception to 2 years after birth (or longer depending on the quality of life). There has to be a line somewhere, and there has to be laws enforcing that line. I agree with maat that the state government is the better place to make laws regarding this line, though even a federal law about it would be better than a court ruling, in my opinion.

[cptacek]

If I were a criminal and I shot a pregnant women, killing her and her child, I would be guilty of a double murder, would I not? The idea that one supreme court member could decide this issue for the masses is unfortunate.

I think it depends on the state. I do remember a case where a boyfriend and girlfriend decided that he would kick the crap out of her to try to get her to spontaneously abort their baby, and he was tried for murder when this "abortion" worked but she wasn't.

[cptacek]

(W)hat would be the problem with allowing civil unions? Except it anger religious beliefs, but otherwise? Making marriage nothing more than a civil contract and nullifying the religious aspect of it? A legal contract?

Why make marriage anything other than what it already is? Why try to remake marriage into a civil union, if there already is something called civil unions that legally are the same thing? Why not let marriage stay as it is, a legal, religious and societal entity, and let civil unions be a legal and societal entity without the religious blessing? I don't see the logic of pulling the religious aspect out of marriage when civil unions fit that bill perfectly.

[cptacek]

I also believe in parental notification/consent laws. A teenager shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion without her parents knowing about it and consenting.

I agree with this. I also think that teenagers shouldn't be able to get birth control without parental approval, which I assume lots of people won't agree with. But birth control is a hormone that could have long term effects on children and teenagers that parents should know about. Think about it. Lots of people will only eat organic beef "because of the hormones" but don't think twice about their daily dose of estrogen.

[Scanner]

Scanner, I have no issues however people want to live. Just don't regulate it. I'm not sure. I think that people have to live with their own decision period. Making it all regulated makes it easy way out.

I have issues with how people want to live.

If they want to party and have a brothel next door to me and smoke weed so the smell is permeating onto my McMansion property, I think we have a right as a citizens and a neighborhood to throw them out on their ears.

Homesteading happened in the 1800's, not the 2000's. I don't think you put up the individual at the collective's expense.

Their individual freedoms devalue my property, disrupt the neighborhood peace, and have the potential to corrupt minors.

Our laws and regulations are what separate civilization from anarchy.