|
Pro-life vs. pro-choice (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
:wtf:
:p |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
The difference here in the U.S. is that Constitutionally, "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." |
Constitution fail. :(
You've got the wrong founding-era document. At most, the Constitution gurantees due process before the state deprives you of your life. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Constitution fail. :(
You've got the wrong founding-era document. At most, the Constitution gurantees due process before the state deprives you of your life. |
haha... whoooops. I meant the D.O.I.
Either way, you see how it's worded... that was my point regarding where the origins of our rights as citizens come from, as opposed to "the State". Couple that with the murky definition of what constitutes a "life" and we've got trouble. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| Arbiter does make a good point though - while the Declaration is certainly a guiding document for American principles, it isn't legally binding in terms of the law. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Arbiter does make a good point though - while the Declaration is certainly a guiding document for American principles, it isn't legally binding in terms of the law. |
Yeah I understand that... all I can say is, if only people thought more like Arbiter: less emotion driven and more common sense/rational. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| The debate is soooo 70s (in civilized countries). |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
The debate is soooo 70s (in civilized countries). |
Hey, you europeans didnt like the puritan way so you kicked us all out.
Don't be mad cause we are #1 now and we want to impose our moral majority on everything and everyone! |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
yeah i love the logic that anti-choicers promote
"you're not responsible enough to have safe sex, so please, bring a child into the world that you can't take care of" |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
yeah i love the logic that anti-choicers promote
"you're not responsible enough to have safe sex, so please, bring a child into the world that you can't take care of" |
"can't take care of" now; but one should be obligated to learn HOW to take of a baby if, by their own stupidity, got knocked up on "accident." Yeah, to whomever it may concern, your life is basically over. But that's what came with your own stupid choice; and one shouldn't (but by no means, can't) be able to get a "get out of jail free" ticket, and one should most certainly--by law--be obligated in every sense of the whole "maternity experience" to take care of their baby to the best--and above and beyond--of their ability.
This really only applies to females around the twenty-five and under category. If we had more and more examples of "this is what happens to your life when you can't keep your legs closed" and if there was some sort-of law barring abortions for this certain age group, perhaps there really wouldn't be much of an argument as far as abortions go; and PERHAPS the ladies and gents would wise up.
Of course, in the case of rape, incest, etc. abortion is completely understandable. But that's it.
This is not an argument for either Pro-Choice/Pro-Life; it's my own opinion and only my own opinion. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| pro-coat hangers. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| pro morning after pill |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
People should have to pass a screening test before they even think of conceiving. Those deemed fit would receive a license to bear children, while those deemed unfit to raise children would be sterilized.
Abortion is so 20 years ago. :o |
|
|
|
|
